User talk:Fletcher/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 23:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Derek Reese (TSCC).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Derek Reese (TSCC).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to wait.
I have no earthly idea how Sandstein divined ANY consensus out of that AfD. I've started a thread at AN/I about it. Please wait until we've hashed it out before unilaterally taking steps to merge. S. Dean Jameson 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the compliments on the stain-glass window shots. They were pretty difficult and I probably should have used a tripod, but I made up for it by add brightness using Picasa's photoshop features. I doubt they are good enough for FP (it is a really high bar from what I can tell), but I like the feedback and hopefully someday one of the pictures will make it. Remember (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my attitude and tone
In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S. Dean Jameson 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP
Hi. I removed the WP:BLP violation on the Pinsky page as per the policy. That opinion has no place on the talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that particular comment should be removed. What I was suggesting was move the whole paragraph about the feud to the talk page, or just delete it entirely. A minor war of words doesn't have much encyclopedic value.  In any event, I will be out of town and won't be able to add anything for a while. UPDATE: Oh, I didn't realize you were editing my own comment on the talk page. I  don't protest the edit.  Fletcher (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Yes, BLP requires immediate removal of such. Enjoy your trip. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply
See Policy. And no, I was not "green cactus". Greener Cactus (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly joke. Should have used an emoticon. :-) Fletcher (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gratuitous commercial link"
You ought to look at that link again. It's not a "commercial link" at all. And I'm sure you understand the differences between project space and main space, and the different rules that apply. Maybe you'll amend your edit in light of your findings. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An off-site, off-topic link to a commercial vendor is what I would call a commercial link. Yes, the business has a marketing slogan that vaguely parallels your comment on FPC, but I don't see why I need to see some random company's slogan just to make sense of a comment on FPC, and it doesn't make sense, until you've seen the site.  It seems like the kind of in-joke people affiliated with that website would think of. If the link disappeared, I would need to revise my comment, of course.  Fletcher (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a commercial vendor. This is why I asked you to check the link again. I'm not sure what I can recommend at this point. I could suggest to meditate and think of humorous things perhaps, or to switch your brain on if not enabled. Perhaps your driver needs an update. I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but I did ask you to check, and you didn't do it thoroughly enough, so I'm at a loss of how to communicate with you. I'm still hoping you'll understand that it's a humourous site that is not actually selling a product. Okay, how about this: the product is fake. Does that help? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your supercilious attitude notwithstanding, it's pretty obviously a commercial site, which again has nothing to do with the photo being discussed on FPC.  Yes, they have a joke on the splash page, but it's still a commercial web design vendor.  If you're saying the whole company is an elaborate hoax, well, it's far too subtle for me, and it's not nearly as funny as the bonsai kitten, anyway.    I don't really care about some lame marketing joke, and it's discourteous to force your fellow Wikipedians to go off site to see it (yes, I know nobody is really forced to do anything, but the joke doesn't really make sense at first glance, as we were talking about a photo, not a logo. So to make sense of it, you have to click on the link to see that some company has a slogan about making images bigger, paralleling your comment on FPC.  As you might have guessed, I found that more annoying than funny.  There's no rules here but people are sensitive about advertising, and I personally wouldn't be sending people off-site unless it is really funny, but maybe that's just me.  Fletcher (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Remorse?
Fletcher, I appreciate your sense of humor so much I've located an archival pic of Lawrence Sperry. Not sure it has FP potential... Durova Charge! 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks... When I was looking at that picture I just started laughing and could not walk away without saying something. Here I am supposedly a 30 year old man, but don't seem to have matured since ninth grade. Felt a little embarrassed everyone else was making grown-up comments, so yes, remorse. Glad you got a laugh out of it.  :-)  Fletcher (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, erm...your joke has brought quite a bit of laughter over the last day. It turns out Sperry was the inventor of autopilot (and if legend is true, also the first to find a really good use for autopilot).  Obviously the current articles are in error: he should not be the founder but the cofounder of that club.  Alas, the name of his intrepid partner has probably been lost to history.  Fly the friendly skies... ;)  Durova Charge! 04:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah... brilliant -- now we know why he might have invented the autopilot. Can just imagine the guy composing his patent application with a wry smile. Agree it seems a little unfair to give him all the credit, just because he's the only one identified: I fixed the articles, although, knowing me, I might have just made them worse. ;-) Fletcher (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Freedomtower Jun2008.jpg
Thanks for your help keeping the vandal at bay on Freedomtower Jun2008.jpg and Freedom Tower. Do you know if there's any way to get his/her IP address banned so the cycle doesn't continue indefinitely? –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


 * We can't ban IPs but we can block them. The vandal has a dynamic IP so it changes: I'm not sure how well we can block those.  But it doesn't seem like a very serious case of vandalism, more likely just the uploader thinking he can "defend" his image by removing tags.  I was hoping an admin would just delete the image already, problem solved.  Not sure why it's takes so long.  Fletcher (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I requested page protection on the image todayFletcher (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW
A barnstar! Thanks, I have been trying :) The no erz (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:WP:FPC
Could you take another look at this please? -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   13:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have replied on FPC. Fletcher (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven
Hi Fletcher, just wondering if you could revisit Featured picture candidates/Ludwig van Beethoven and express your preference for which version should be promoted. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All set. Fletcher (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deer Island
Hi. Excellent photograph of Deer Island (Massachusetts) that you took and put in the article ! The "egg digesters" (waste water sludge removal) in the background really add flavour. Thanks and Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Add flavour -- that's one way to put it! Thanks so much for the compliment; I'm glad you thought it adds to the article.  I've only been to the park once, but it's a nice place. Fletcher (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a classic yet excellent shot. And a slightly bad pun in my banter. ;) The egg digesters are quite amazing: nearly fifteen stories tall and aren't there twelve of them ? ;) Sorry for the text deletion which was a browser buffer loss fault. Someone else was spot on and fixed the inadvertant deletion. It was okay on the preview but the save lost some buffers in the browser. Deer Island looks much more exciting with your photograph. The MWRA photo is a little less intimate. ;) http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/03sewer/graphic/HarborSymposium.jpg ... Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem about the deletion -- I could see it was inadvertent. Did you see the nice close-up of the eggs at Deer Island Waste Water Treatment Plant?  I'm also amazed by stuff like that.  Hope to get closer next time I'm down there.  It didn't even smell, at least from where I was.  Nothing like chewin' the fat, talkin' about waste management....  Fletcher (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Fletch. Thanks. Yes, I did see the shot of the "dozen eggs". It's really quite hilarious in some visual sense. But they are very efficient sludge processors and MIT was in on their design. Still from the Long Island Bridge it looks impressive like a carton of a dozen eggs. ;) It shouldn't smell. There are a lot of Halogens processing it. And they shoot the waste water product 5 miles or so into the Atlantic Ocean. The old treatment facilty for Boston was on Moon Island (Massachusetts) where there are still four sludge removal canals but they are not operative. The sewer water was pumped from all Boston to an amplification pumping station on Columbia Point which sent it to Moon Island then out to sea. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Market Anarchism
I saw you comments on Market Anarchism vs Anarcho-capitalism. Could you please explain to me the difference? I personally believe in a free market unrestricted by government, and I view capitalism as governments intervention in the free market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber Grim Kvlt (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anarcho-capitalists have the same view as you, but define capitalism differently: what you are calling capitalism, an anarcho-capitalist would call a mixed economy -- a mix of capitalism and socialism, with some things provided by the market, others by the government. Anarcho-capitalists want to do away with the socialist parts.  Market anarchism includes anarcho-capitalism, but is broader in scope: for example, Benjamin Tucker was also a market anarchist, but advocated what was called mutualism (economic theory), which used the labor theory of value.  Anarcho-capitalists tend to favor neoclassical economics and marginalism.  Hope that helps. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Armadillo hover
I just wanted to say again that I appreciated your comments at the peer review. The photo has been accepted as a featured image. Wronkiew (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that. Congrats on getting it promoted. :-) Fletcher (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI AN/I thread.
FYI, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

AGF and all that
Hi Fletcher, I'm a little concerned about this edit, wherein you ask another editor to "Please do not add false information to Wikipedia." This is a rather serious accusation and I would be interested in your substantiation or retraction of same.

As I'm sure you're aware, provision of sources within an AfD carries no prejudice whatsoever. It is the responsibility of the commenting editors to verify the sources (at least the online ones) and make their own judgements, rather than rely on the assertions of other commenters. Schmidt in fact made clear that the bulk of the sources were directed toward proving the notability of the show itself and thus the notability of the film preserving its final performance. I'm not able to find anywhere in the article itself where Schmidt may have used the sources to reference a false statement, thus I'm at a loss to see the founding of your claim of "false information". The External Links of course are subject to trimming at your editorial judgement (and External Links don't prove or disprove anything in any case).

I've communicated quite closely with Schmidt during his wiki-career and I can assure you that his intentions are only the best. To suggest that he would knowingly provide false information is indeed an insult and conflicts with everything I've seen to-date. I'll grant you that he has an inclusionist bent and even worse, has a tendency to make massive improvements to articles under threat, and also to create related articles.

You and he got off to a bad footing at that AfD debate - is there any way you can help to repair the breach?

(Also, I think you missed one in the list of sources you objected to - the first ref to NY Times pretty clearly mentions the film version, including a link to hotticket.com - unless I'm reading wrong)

Regards! Franamax (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He may be sincerely motivated to improve the encyclopedia by "rescuing" articles, but he doesn't seem to care very much whether what he says is true. To my mind, good faith requires honesty, not just an earnest motivation.  At two points (at least) he added false information to mainspace: Here he links to the Houston Press which seems to have the right title, but is in fact about Rent (film), a different  production dating from 2005 ("perhaps the worst of 2005") that is not the topic of the AfD.  The AfD was about the 2008 release of a live recording of the musical.  But perhaps this was just a careless error.  Yet he appeared to make the same error in linking to the soundtrack of the 2005 film as if it was related to the subject 2008 film.  To his credit, he seems to have removed the first erroneous cite (after I discussed it on the AfD), and I removed the second from the article.


 * He then added the string of false sources in the AfD discussion. As noted, the sources only attest to the notability of RENT and do not constitute significant coverage of this particular filming of RENT.  The Rolling Stone link was an exception, and you are right that his first link also mentions the film, but it is still trivial coverage, with the bulk of the article addressing the play itself.  Such trivial coverage is specifically excluded in WP:NOTFILM, else everything listed in IMDB would get an article here.  Nonetheless, what is "trivial" may be arguable at times; what disturbed me most were the links that appear not to even mention the film.  That is a complete waste of my time looking through articles that are not even about the subject of the AfD.  If his claim that they are "pieces of the mosaic that underscore the notability" does not set off your bullshit detector, you need to have it recalibrated.  He is implying every DVD release, every new addition of a book, merits a separate article, inheriting notability from the significance of the original work.  I say that is nonsense (c.f. WP:NOTINHERITED) and that the sources must address the topic they are cited to support.  An article full of false or misleading information is far, far worse than a small, non-notable but accurate article.  I admonished him because I was worried he would start adding these sources to the article. On the whole, I'm sure he thinks he is helping, but I don't think this editor cares very much about the accuracy of the material he adds, so long as he can chalk up another successful "rescue."  Fletcher (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, those certainly appear to be two pretty damn careless errors and I will take them up with Schmidt right smartly. I stand corrected about false content in the article - but they are not mis-statements of fact (which I can run off and get you 10 examples of anytime: - they are however (as far as I can tell) errors.
 * And yes, we will have to disagree on what is a "trivial" mention - the Times article used the closing of the show to lead in to the existence of the movie, as hinted by the article title "...Minutes To Preserve". I'm under the general impression that coverage in the NY Times is significant, as is Rolling Stone - or is there a caveat that it must be named in the headline?
 * Now, on some of your other comments: you are free to think that your time is being wasted at AfD, but you're not free to decide that someone else is deliberately deciding to waste your time - remember that AGF thing and please try to educate rather than excoriate; Schmidt is not "implying every DVD release..." - that is you deciding to extend an argument that Schmidt is not trying to make, Schmidt's argument is solely directed to the notability of a (n apparently widely-released) film documenting the final performance of a (n apparently record-setting) musical, I see no attempt to change policy; and whilst your desire for a small, non-notable and accurate article is laudable, if it's non-notable, it thereby becomes no article. Of course, if you find an article full of false or misleading information, you are welcome to use your editorial discretion to clean it up. You'll be stretched to prove the "full of" part in this case, I think. And in an article which is extensively sourced, any deception is pretty easily spotted in any case - and there I could likely run off and find you 100,000 or so counter-examples.
 * Finally, you appear to be drawing conclusions about the state-of-mind of the editor in question: I don't think this editor cares very much about the accuracy of the material he adds, so long as he can chalk up another successful "rescue.". That is a frankly outrageous statement for you to be making, please review our guideline on this subject. And much as I hate to drop alphabet soup, you may also be interested in WP:NPA. There's another alternative here though - maybe you could engage the editor at their talk page and work your concerns through with them? I think you will find that Schmidt is quite responsive to feedback from other editors and eager to contribute positively to Wikipedia. That would be a far better solution than the two of us arguing here! Franamax (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When someone makes errors that all happen to support his point of view, it is not good faith editing. I did try to assume good faith, as you can see in this edit where I struck some of my harsher words and offered a conciliatory smiley face.


 * I was then disappointed to see him go from citing what I thought were trivial sources, to citing sources that were completely bogus. It is one thing to be an uber-inclusionist and argue everything should get its own article.  I don't agree with that, but it can be defended in an intellectually honest way (WP:NOTPAPER, etc.).  But I don't see how one can link to WP:N and then link, for example, to a New York Times slideshow that has nothing whatsoever to do with the film as evidence of notability.  WP:N specifically requires sources to address the topic: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content."  That is not quite compatible with the idea that a source can address a different subject (i.e. the original play viz-a-viz a particular release of it), and that editors are at liberty to infer the content is applicable to the article in question.  Indeed it is the precise opposite!  And please note you are incorrect that "significant" means the source must be significant; it is the coverage that must be significant – the source only must be reliable and independent of the subject. A detailed review in a small town (but reliable) paper is a stronger source than the NYT merely mentioning that a film exists, for example.


 * As I have only criticized Schmidt's sourcing technique, I don't see why you would caution me against personal attacks. I appreciate you are trying to keep things civil.  Somewhat regretfully, I can be very argumentative, and I don't hesitate to call a spade a spade.  It doesn't seem there is any actual malice on his part, but I wish he would hold himself to a higher standard. Fletcher (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher, inre this diff, your input is welcomed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Fletcher (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic outline of cell biology
I've added this to Portal:Contents/List of glossaries/Natural and physical sciences; I thought it was a good one but couldn't find it for some reason, not sure if it got taken off. Do you have any idea why there is a redlink at the top? I noticed you moved the article recently. Fletcher (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The redlink is fixed. See the rest of the set of topic outlines at WikiProject Outline of knowledge. The Transhumanist  18:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool; thanks. Fletcher (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ecto (software)
A tag has been placed on Ecto (software) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. 16x9 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ecto (software)
I have nominated Ecto (software), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ecto (software). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- VS talk 11:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT
Whoops, thanks for the revert - I didn't see the other stuff, just a couple of extra commas. I should have gone through a bit more carefully. Orpheus (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. :-) --Fletcher (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Fletcher, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.-- VS  talk 11:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Frozen Pinecone
I have added the variety and description. Cheers, Ṝ ed  M arkV iolinist Drop me a line 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured_picture_candidates
"Oppose EV is somewhat weak, spread over three articles. Shows little of a T-37; does serve to identify the student pilot but is not very educational about the topic, though admittedly it is a hard one to illustrate; does show an oxygen mask but again, not an extremely informative view." Would it help if I diagramed out each component of the mask? The vast majority of the components of the mask are quite visible. Is there anything I can do to address your concerns? — BQZip01 — talk 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, just please answer here. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to Oxygen mask I don't think it is large or focused or sharp enough on the mask. I agree it would help to diagram, or just spell out the components in the caption.  When I look at Featured pictures/Engineering and technology, however, most of these have a strong focus on their respective subject. That's just my reaction FWIW.  Fletcher (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-shoot
Thought you'd like to know, I've re-shot that photo. Picture peer review/Secondary growth, cheers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I replied on the peer review page. Fletcher (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-shoot #2!
Hi, I've re-shot that photo. Would you mind taking a look please, cheers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT merge
Thanks for the support. And for the copy-edit. I think it looks great now. Randomran (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Season
I agree that the change was passive and this is not a desirable English mode of expression. However, Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual either. Personal pronouns are definitely precluded, including "one." If you can figure out an active way of wording it without using an implied personal pronoun, great! Student7 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the pronoun "one." The policy against how-to guides applies more to the meaning than any specific verbiage.  The manual of style says nothing about "one" but does caution against second person "you," which I would agree sounds too chatty. "One" is more formal-sounding than second person "you."  Granted, one will find the pronoun "one" becomes awkward when one has to use it more than once within one sentence. :-)   Fletcher (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

FPC Nom
Please re!vote on this nom. It was relisted and your previous vote no longer counts. Thanks. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Time Machine.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Time Machine.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CVC Image
Nice addition. Excellent photo. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Fletcher (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Judy Garland Main Image Quality
Hi, as an apparent photo expert, might you have a view that you would like to express in the discussion at and  as to the quality of the Judy Garland main image? Feel free, if so, to leave your thoughts there, whatever they may be. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tx for your input.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:IMac G3 Panel.jpg
File:IMac G3 Panel.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:IMac G3 Panel.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks



 * No problem, did seem a bit suspicious but you never want to assume the worst. Fletcher (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Peabody Essex Museum
Thanks for the clean-up of the image. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for adding it! Fletcher (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. My pleasure. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the message. Fletcher (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2
I'll just mention that there are some new reply options for this question, which also serves as an example of how the poll should progress when none of the available options suit the contributors. The question on dealing with unclear consensus has apparently been the most controversial so far. I remain hopeful that we will succeed in representing people's opinions by the time the poll ends. Feel free to change your vote or add a new reply option if the three new ones still don't quite work for you. (But obviously, try to create something general enough that it's likely to gather a following.) Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Tx for your good work on the TS article. Two quick points -- the more important one: pls don't delete the see also refs that are detailed. The template lacks the detail that they have. Second, as to the semicolon in the title -- looks odd to you, looks ok to me ... but as changed, it does not adequately describe the content, as it is only in small part about the suspect's arrest. Open to suggestions as to how to revise. No doubt the legal process part will shortly be its own section.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment - have responded on Talk:2010 Times Square car bomb attempt.Fletcher (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The flight was pulled back for the other two guys
The two guys were not arrested. Faisal got down from the airplane when asked to do so - the plane was still at the gate. This is according to CNN. --ukioe (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Link? Fletcher (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

what is your link that it is not? --ukioe (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The NY Times seems to have updated its article recently and I may have been looking at an an old version. Either that or I misread.  Should be fixed now. :)


 * At the first place, it was me who wrote that by mistake. Later after 2 hours I heard from CNN the actual facts. I correcetd it and you reversed it back to what I had originally written. You may reverse it back when you feel like doing so after verifying.--ukioe (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done so; you can check the article now if you want. Fletcher (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha
I really wish you'd made your... ahem... partly constructive comments when editors such as Muhammad were adding *their own* images to various articles. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Gary Sinise on stage
Since you voiced an opinion at the unsuccessful WP:FPC nomination, I thought you might consider the Valued picture candidates/Gary Sinise on stage nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Peter's Catholic Church photo
Thanks for the quick help! My point in making the request was to get a realistic image as one could see it from the ground. Of course I could have taken the picture without the stop sign if I'd been paying better attention, but I couldn't get the picture without the power lines; consequently, I wouldn't feel right asking you to remove them even if it were easy. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. I tend to agree about the power lines, but it can be argued either way. Mainly I wasn't sure I could remove them because they go in front of the building and trees. Much easier to remove something when it's surrounded by plain blue sky. :-) Fletcher (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Curious, what do you mean by "clone" in your upload summary of "clone job of stop sign"? Is it simply "removal"?  I can't find anything applicable at Clone or at the Wiktionary entry.  Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In image editors there is something called a clone tool that allows you to copy or "clone" a small part of an image into another part. It's hard to create something on the computer that looks as natural as a photograph, so a lot of image retouching is just grafting little pieces of a photo from a good part over a bad part.  With sky, you never notice the difference.  Those power lines are harder because they go in front of the building and trees; these have fine textures so you have to zoom in a lot and do the retouching very carefully.  So it can be done, but takes a bit more skill and effort, and as you said it is kind of cheating. :-) Fletcher (talk)

Willis Tower at WP:VPC
You recently participated in the discussion at Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano. You are now welcome to participate in the discussion of both Willis Tower images at WP:VPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2 results
Hi, because you contributed to FPC's recent review, I'm letting you know that the results of the poll have been posted. We appreciate your contributions to the first stage and hope you take part in this next step, here, to move towards implementing several changes to the process. Regards, Mae din\ talk 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the note. :-) Fletcher (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983

 * Hey there, just noticed I linked the wrong version of the picture here (and on Tony's talk page), which probably caused his confusion. Fixed now.  Jujutacular  T · C 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - hopefully we've clarified it for him now. Fletcher (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped
You participated in the discussion at Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983 and so I thought I would alert you to a discussion at Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Mae din\ talk 04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maedin. :-) Fletcher (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File you uploaded listed for deletion
See. Thanks. ÷seresin 10:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Fletcher (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Mike Godwin 2
Hi, just letting you know that I have renominated the image. I'm contacting you as you participated in the first discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IPod Touch Late 2009.png
 Thanks for uploading File:IPod Touch Late 2009.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pic
Nice work!--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Fletcher (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And again!--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks... that picture-less infobox was bugging me! Fletcher (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudos!
Kudos again! As you can see here, the Economist just used the pic of the Cordoba House site that you helped me with, and put in the article!--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, cool! Fletcher (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba House DYK
FYI -- I've opened up a Cordoba House DYK here. It includes your pic. Hopefully someone picks up on my request for fast approval, to catch the wave of interest. BTW -- is there (if this is not asking too much) anyway to make the circle bolder, so it is more apparent in the small pic needed for DYK? Just a thought. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great job bolding the circle! Now ... if someone would just promote the DYK, before it becomes old news ...--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hopefully the backlog won't take too long. Fletcher (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Words to avoid
Hi. Just a minor comment for your consideration. You just made an edit at our active article, adding the word "claimed". As I read WP:CLAIM, that practice is deprecated, inasmuch as it says: "Ensure that the way Wikipedia characterizes people's statements is neutral and accurate. Said, stated, wrote, and according to can be used neutrally in almost all contexts. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.... To write that someone claimed ... something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." So, I wonder whether it is not better to use one of the indicated non-loaded terms. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "saying", although it didn't seem like a loaded statement to me. I think "claim" would only call someone's credibility into question if contravening evidence is also presented, or implied. But here was are just presenting various people's claims without drawing conclusions. Fletcher (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I generally defer to the policy, though its not what I would have written necessarily.  The same with the use of "alleged", outside of use in a court complaint.  What I've found, even though it would not have been my choice, is that it improves the article by limiting the tabloid-like tone.  That especially seeps in when the loaded words are used on one side, and not the other.  Which (naturally?) happens too easily without this rule being applied (e.g., side x "claimed", side b "said").  We avoid any of that w/this approach.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent and obvious (to most?) point at the article, in the edit summary of your revert. Well put.  If there are POV pushers afoot, it will no doubt move to the talk page, where many recently created editors w/fewer than 200 edits in their history will disagree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew the mosque/community center aspect would come up. I just realized (and added to the article) that the Park51 website describes it as a mosque, while their official blog says it's only a community center with "prayer space". There seems to be real ambiguity about this with different people saying different things, and no doubt there is a public relations aspect, given that some Americans have reacted negatively to the word mosque (not to mention "mega mosque"). It will be tricky to keep it balanced and we can't have people airbrushing history because it's convenient to their point of view.  But don't forget, we all started with fewer than 200 edits, :-) Fletcher (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If that discussion expands (which it might), I recall seeing an interesting comment somewhere, I believe from a journalist (a "media commentators page" may makes sense at some point in time -- we have no room on the current page). There is of course a bit that's been said, some of which is reflected in the article, about individuals saying different things to different audiences.  On the one hand there is some talk that suggests this as a building "open to all".  (Some statements, if one didn't read them all, could even be mistaken to suggest that what we will have here is a prayer space that invites all faiths to worship.) On the other hand, sharia law would not seem to favor mixed swimming, for example, and a swimming pool is in the offing.  I haven't followed this line of discussion because the principal focus had not been on it, and most of the focus of the commentators has been on the issue of -- should there be a mosque x distance from Ground Zero, and why or why not.  But, will be interesting to see where the focus goes.


 * Your questions as to whether we are speaking of one building or two was a good call, btw, as later events showed. I agree about "mega mosque" -- but, btw, we should reflect the square footage in the infobox.  The one used does not have a line for it, but the template does.  That's what we should strive for -- the factual (unless it is a notable person using a subjective description, which in itself becomes notable).


 * As far as us all starting w/under 200 edits, that of course is true. I suspect, however, that at that point you and I were not editing like veterans, on contentious pages, agreeing with a number of other "newbies" with similar characteristics.  Personally, an idea I have that I'll perhaps explore sometime is: a) voluntary checkusers on editors who volunteer for them (I would be one); and b) limiting certain contentious articles to editors who have so volunteered.  That would quickly free up many of these articles, I believe, from the level of socking that they are subject to.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, you could always bring it up on the Village Pump. I thought that Bloomberg quote was a bit weak... while Bloomberg's opinion is certainly notable, he isn't notable as an impartial surveyor and I wasn't sure we should be giving his representation of what other people think.  We don't know what kind of fundraiser it was, whether it's a statistically valid cross-section of 9/11 families, whether he did in fact speak with everyone there and all agreed with his viewpoint.  The numbers (50 people, 100% agreement) sound rounded; the quote sounds like a casual remark. Fletcher (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your points. I didn't think it important to quote him as the equivalent of a poll, by any means.  Though people can decide how to understand his words as they see fits.  True, 50 may be rounded.  People can reach that conclusion if they like -- that's why it is good to use his exact words here.  100 doesn't sound rounded to me -- it sounds like "complete, unilateral".  Again, people can read it and reach their own conclusions.  It doesn't to me sound casual.  A key discussion here has been, "If the [families, country, state, city, borough] think x, what is the correct course of action?"  Bloomberg has been the most prominent person speaking on one side of this discussion.  If his belief/understanding, based on whatever sample/input he had, is what he says it is, that seems of great interest.  It explains somewhat his thinking.  Especially, as many of those taking the other side of the discussion come from a completely diametrically opposite view of the fact.  This could be quite core to the whole discussion.  Anyway, such were my thoughts.  It wasn't being presented to evidence what the 9/11 families view is per se, as much as what Bloomberg says he understands their view to be, and why.  That's a key bit of info.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that it must be presented as "a planned 13-story multi-faith community center" only and not a mosque at all. A mosque is a place which is wholly and exclusively dedicated to Muslims for religious activities. A Muslim prayer room is not a mosque and many Sharia restrictions do not apply to it. It is a functional room; there is one in the White House as there is one in many University library buildings in the Europe. Having a prayer room does not change the main function of any building. You wouldn't say that "it is University of Sheffield's library and a mosque". You may say "the University of Sheffield's library has a Muslim prayer room". Moreover, I think the official description of a building which is not built yet is the matter of fact about the function of that building. The official description of this building, as I had quoted in the previous edit, states that "strictly speaking it is not a mosque". rezakhs (talk) 23:46, 04 October 2010 (EST)


 * We say the project is to have a mosque within it, not that it is a mosque entirely. The place within the building will be "wholly and exclusively dedicated to Muslims for religious activities", ergo, a mosque under your own definition.  (There is talk about adding non-denominational prayer space, but I believe that would be in addition to the mosque, not in lieu of it).  The fact that the building has other facilities besides the mosque doesn't change the fact that it has a mosque.  And we don't defer to "official" sources on Wikipedia; we use common English words as used in reliable sources.  Many sources, for and against the project, have referred to the project as having a mosque.  Even the project backers referred to it as a mosque, until they decided not to.  And this fact that is has a mosque is the primary reason the project is notable, because some people perceive mosques to be threatening.  Perhaps you support the project and want to make it sound less threatening, but our job here is to be neutral, to describe the project as it is generally described in reliable sources.  Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I find any religious center to be somewhat threating; but my personal opinion should not be a point of concern here. Nonetheless, I think I should repeat myself that the building is not wholly and exclusively dedicated to Muslims for religious activities. Although Mulsim prayer rooms are places within a whole building which are wholly and exclusively dedicated to Muslims for religious activities, they do not change the function of a building as a whole. (As White-House's function has not changed and it does not have a mosque; it only has a Mulsim prayer room). However, I do get your point about the need to refer to the fact that this place is commonly known as a mosque. So I suggest that this qualification be added that "However, strictly speaking it is not a mosque". This as I cited before is supported by the statement from the Cordoba people too.

I agree with you the building is not wholly and exclusively dedicated to Muslims for religious activities: It's a community center and mosque, not just a mosque. However the mosque part of the building appears to be dedicated to exclusively Muslims. And it is reasonable to describe such a space as a mosque, as many people have. I don't think we should say "strictly speaking it is not a mosque," (where "it" refers to the prayer space, not the whole building). It seems to me the word mosque can be interpreted loosely and it doesn't have to be a dedicated freestanding building, but can be a space within a building. For example, the New York Times describes Masjid Manhattan here as one of two mosques near Ground Zero, even though it only occupies a "narrow basement." Fletcher (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I can see your point and I've started changing my mind. The current description does sound more accurate. rezakhs (talk) 00:51, 08 October 2010 (EST)

Orphaned non-free image File:IPod Touch Late 2009.png
 Thanks for uploading File:IPod Touch Late 2009.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New messages waiting for you

 * At my talk page. Best.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the word "Mosque"
In a recent edit in which you added the wikilinked word mosque to the article Park51 you claimed in the edit summary that there was no consensus to remove the word "mosque" from the article, as if the word "mosque" was removed from the article.

I just want to point out to you that the article already contains the word "mosque" more than 100 times (I counted them and and I gave up counting after 100 and before I got to the citations listings which carries the word many many more times).

The main function of Park51 is not as a place of prayer as otherwise it would indeed be a mosque. Its main function is that of a cultural center and therefore the word mosque is not an appropriate label over and above "prayer space". This was discussed at the article talk page and it did achieve consensus, at least for the lede section. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say remove the word mosque from the article. My edit summary only said remove the word mosque, and in context I meant from the lede, since this was in response to someone who removed it from the lede. There was no need for you to go searching for the word throughout the article.  I disagree there was ever any consensus to remove this word from the lede. It doesn't matter what the project's main function is.  It has a mosque included, and this fact is perceived as notable by many reliable sources, for and against.  The controversy over the mosque is what this project is primarily notable for.  Removing the word mosque reeks of political correctness. I thought this was settled on the talk page.   Fletcher (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Michigan Avenue 1911
Please revisit Featured picture candidates/Chicago Michigan Avenue 1911.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pic suggestion
Hi ... I'm not great w/pix, and know you are ... do you have any suggestions as to how I could find a relevant one for this article, which is very much in the news? 2010 cargo plane bomb plot? It is getting many hits, and lacks a pic of the printer cartridge, for example. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! You are the absolute best!!--Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible someone will try to delete the image for copyright reasons. The copyright of the images in the press seems ambiguous to me.  Hopefully my fair use rationale will hold.  Fletcher (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hope not! BTW, should the pic of the bomb go in the infobox, to give it greater prominence?  Your call ... I defer.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Placing the image right next to the text that discusses it will help it survive copyright scrutiny, I believe. That is, fair use is allowed for purposes of supplementing commentary, but not simply for decoration of the article.  Maybe we can find a free image of a cargo plane or something for the infobox.  Fletcher (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Makes sense.  Nice newest add, as well.  BTW, I had seen (who knows in which article) a picture of cargo being sorted in Yemen.  It was worse than you might even expect in its sense of ... "we can't depend on it being discovered there".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it appropriate for the PETN article?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Toner Cartridge Bomb.jpg
Hi, you uploaded this image, stating that the source and author is unknown. I did a quick search and discovered that the image (along with several others) was taken by Dubai Police and released through the state news agency and is subject to copyright restrictions:. Not sure what that means as far as fair-use goes, but I'm sure you'll want to update the licence information. It is also worth noting that the photo is claimed to show printer parts stuffed with explosives, whereas your description and the caption in the related article seem to state this as a fact, so you may wish to modify those also. Regards, <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; I updated the image page with the new information. It seems to me that the captions are consistent with how the bombs are described in reliable sources.Fletcher (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. We all know that the press like to put a certain spin on things but we have what the AP chose to put. If we looked at the photo without any prior knowledge or context, they could just as easilty be stuffed with modelling clay. I think it's best to reflect what was actually stated when the photo was released rather than what someone has decided to report as fact farther down the line. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 15:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Fletcher.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'd expect nothing less than for you to take the most impartial RS opinion you can find and have it presented here as fact. It's what you do best. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 08:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

MBTA infobox
Please see Gfoley's Talk page for more information. A consensus was reached to update the infoboxes to the "T" Style. MBTA uses all caps in its stations signage. Like many other transit networks on wikipedia, the consensus was reached to display the name in the infobox in a similar maner to how the transit system does (see South Norwalk (Metro-North station) or Hollywood/Highland (Los Angeles Metro station) for examples. As you will notice in this, for example, MBTA capitalizes all letters.--Enfiladekh1 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AppleScript Editor Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:AppleScript Editor Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Fletcher,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 8, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-10-08.  howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.... Fletcher (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC
You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise.

Link: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Trayvon Martin
"Clearly the only NPOV solution is to use rods." - lol ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hello Fletcher,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Into
Into is a compound preposition. It is a compound of the prepositions in and to. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/594/02/ The entire stupid debate missed the point that compounds are to be capitalized by the rules thus the Manual of Style dictated Into Darkness. Xkcdreader (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Into' may be a compound as far as its etymology, but doesn't seem to be a compound preposition in the way that term is often used, or in the way it's being used in the Wikipedia guideline. You'll note MOS:CT refers to the "first word" in a compound preposition, implying there is at least one more word to follow, and the examples given have multiple words ("Time Out of Mind, etc.). I think the spirit of the guideline is to avoid awkward strings of lowercase words mixed in with the capitalized ones. I do agree the 'Into' should be capitalized but because it is meant as a subtitle, not because of a grammatical rule.Fletcher (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)