User talk:Fletcher/Archive 1

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

Welcome!

Hello, Fletcher, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

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 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 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)

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)

Hi. I removed the

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)

Just a friendly joke. Should have used an emoticon. :-) Fletcher (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Thanks for your help keeping the vandal at bay on

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)

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

Could you take another look at

Have replied on FPC. Fletcher (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fletcher, just wondering if you could revisit Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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: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

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: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)

I've added this to

The redlink is fixed. See the rest of the set of topic outlines at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. The Transhumanist

18:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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 {{hangon}} 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 Wikipedia: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, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#T-37_Solo_Student_Pilot

"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

Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Secondary growth, cheers. Ryan4314 (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. Ryan4314 (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

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. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Time Machine.png)

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. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 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 [1] and [2] 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

talk

) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Successful featured picture nomination

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 11:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

:)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia: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#see also.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: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

WP:FOUR

) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2 results

Hi Fletcher, because you contributed to

talk

18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. :-) Fletcher (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Jujutacular T · C 08:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia: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.

talk

04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maedin. :-) Fletcher (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File you uploaded listed for deletion

See here. Thanks. ÷seresin 10:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fletcher (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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

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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} 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

the discussion.

— raekyT