User talk:Crazypaco/Archive 2

AR = Arkansas
Your recent edit on the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article was a good one. I just noticed you used AK as the abbreviation for Arkansas, but AK is the abbreviation for Alaska. (AR is the abbreviation for Arkansas) I just had too much time on my hands, so I thought I would bring it up. ;) (hopefully I am not too much of an a-hole for doing so) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I wasn't trying to pick on you or anything. It is a common abbreviation mistake that I run into a lot. (being from Arkansas) I once had someone on the phone that I was trying to get to ship me something in the mail try to argue with me that AR was Arizona. (which is AZ, by the way) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

pitt 2009 football
Thanks. I've been a Panthers football fan since I was a kid during the Gottfried years. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CPHP Pittsburgh
Please do not revert the changes. The title was erroneous. There are Centers for Public Health Preparedness at several universities. Please refer to:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/cotper/cphp/centers.asp

Thanks.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries! Thanks for clearing that up.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NRHP Infobox contributing property updates
Hi Crazypaco, I noticed that you edited a few articles about contributing properties to the Schenley Farms Historic District to use the new contributing property parameters. Thanks for doing this! Currently a few editors at WP:NRHP are going through all the CP articles (and others) and updating them to use the new syntax/parameters, so it's nice to have a helping hand. It appears as if you got the hang of it after looking at a few of my edits, so that's good. I had to update one article you edited, Gardner Steel Conference Center, to remove the "refnum" field that you left behind, but this is understandable since we haven't written any documentation about how to use the parameters. After we go through the rest of these articles (there are a little over 900 left), I'll add some documentation. Anyway, as if you care, huh? Haha I was just letting you know your help in this area was appreciated! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first question about distinguishing contributing properties that aren't individually listed from those that are individually listed as well as part of a district is one that has come up before. I think what we've decided to do is after this drive is over and all the articles use the new syntax, we're going to implement a template-side code change to remove the default NRHP bar (the light blue one) from sites that are only contributing properties and not individually listed. Our rationale for forcing the light blue bar to show up by default on every article is that all articles in which the infobox is included must be listed on the register (or else they'd use another infobox), so this bar will always need to be there. This is, however, not true for contributing properties since some are listed and some are not, so this fix, I think, will address your concerns. For contributing properties that aren't individually listed, only the CP bar will show up, and for contributing properties that are separately listed, both bars will show up. If, however, you have another suggestion for how to distinguish, drop a note over at WT:NRHP.
 * Your second question is kind of outside of the scope of WP:NRHP. If a site isn't listed on the NRHP, we don't really cover it, so the NRHP infobox doesn't have features for this. There is, however, a new(ish) project, WP:HSITES, that covers more than just NRHP articles. The infobox used there is Infobox Historic Site, which allows you to add an infobox for locally designated sites that aren't listed on the NRHP, as long as you request the designation's inclusion at the project's talk page. You can look through the documentation there for more information, but I think this infobox is what you are looking for. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Katz School of Business Vandalism
Thank you for reverting the minor vandalism to this article. The vandalism was part of an experiment at the recent International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process held at Katz. I made a presentation about Wikipedia to about 40 academic researchers from all around the world. It included a discussion of vandalism and the reliability of Wikipedia, in which I stated that vandalism was typically reverted very quickly. This specific vandalism was suggested in part by the dean of the school, who informed me that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had famously compared the one-year cost of a CMU MBA with the total program cost of a Pitt MBA, and concluded that Pitt was more expensive. The material about Prof. Saaty was included because he is the sponsor of our Symposium and because he is the polar opposite of a "heartless tyrant."

I (and the lecture attendees) were worried and disappointed that the vandalism still remained a half hour after it was posted. We decided to leave it up there for 24 hours or so, and if it hadn't been reverted, to revert it ourselves. Thankfully, it took only 1:59 for the heroic Crazypaco to find and correct our hopefully-not-too-harmful vandalism.

I conclude that the experiment was a success, and that even not-so-obvious vandalism to reasonably out-of-the-public-mainstream articles is, for the most part, very quickly corrected. If I knew how to give you a barnstar, I'd do it. Ohio Mailman (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I figured that "stinks" would get some attention that the other stuff wouldn't. I had planned to use a much stronger word, but the audience included many people from exotic countries, and I didn't want to risk offending somebody. I think you might be interested in the paper I presented. It is short and easily understood. If I knew your email address, I'd send you a copy. I got one from your own web site, but I don't know if you ever check that address. Let me know. You can reach me at XXXXX@aol.com Lou Sander (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! I just noticed that I previously used "Ohio Mailman," who is a student long gone from this country and Wikipedia. Sorry for the minor deception. I am really Lou Sander (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

UPitt navbox
I was wondering how you made the header/top of the University of Pittsburgh navbox (the part with image/graphics)? I've been trying to improve Template:W&M since I'm an alum from there, and I've done a lot to it believe me, but I really like the way you fixed Pitt's. Not to copy your design, but I'd like to copy your idea and make one for William & Mary. Jrcla2 talk 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pitt Milligan coach
Hey-

I've been doing some old google news searches to try to find some sources for Mike Milligan (basketball coach). Some are mentioning that a Mike Milligan was later hired by Pitt as head coach - could this be the same Milligan head coach for Pitt football instead of Walter? Currently the article was put up for speedy deletion, that's why I'm investigating the sources right now and coming across this. matt91486 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an example of what I mean, if I was abstract at all. I'm taking the articles to strongly indicate that Mike Milligan was at the least an o-line coach at Pitt, but I don't know enough about Pitt to know for sure if he also became head coach or if it's just a naming coincidence. 00:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was much better known as a football coach then his disastrous year taking over the hoops team at Tulane. He certainly is notable, but the article needs to be renamed to Walter Milligan or Mike Milligan (coach). CrazyPaco (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, at this point I agree wholeheartedly, but when I created the article a couple years ago, I didn't know any of that, so I just based it on what I knew. I'm fully in favor of a page move - I think common name would dictate Mike Milligan (coach) with Walter Milligan as a redirect. matt91486 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for flooding this instead of doing it all at once, but I have moved the page to that point. I'm thinking that if we wanted, and you could put the information you have on him, since you seem to know a ton about Pitt, we could probably expand it and get it to a DYK on the front page if we do it over the next couple days. matt91486 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Milligan (footballer)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mike Milligan (footballer), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://dbpedia.org/page/Mike_Milligan. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mike Milligan (footballer)
A tag has been placed on Mike Milligan (footballer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Job
The Running Man Barnstar

Pitt logos
Hello. You re-added logos to a number of season articles for the Pittsburgh Panthers. The curved Pitt logo did not become an athletics logo for the university until 2005. Adding this logo to the articles pertaining to a particular season-team before 2005 is inaccurate at best, akin to adding a Pepsi logo to an article on a Coca-Cola product because we don't have the Coca-Cola product logo uploaded yet. Older logos exist for Pitt. Upload the older logos and place them appropriately please rather than using a logo that has nothing to do with these older seasons. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Apologize
No offense taken. Thanks for the heads-up on the persistent issues with the article. Best of luck on keeping the article clean. That topic seems to have inherent controversy and drama. DeFaultRyan 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"PITT" logo as icon usage
Crazypaco, I've re-removed the "PITT" logo from the University of Pittsburgh infobox. My reasons for doing so are:
 * Per the last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO, this usage is very discouraged.
 * The logo represents University of Pittsburgh athletics. Yes, it's widely recognized as being a logo of the university. So are many other logos of the university. Should be include all those logos too? Going through the various schools at the university, there's plenty of other wordmarks in use across the various sites. Placing the athletic logo in the infobox prioritizes the athletics department over any other department/school of the university. That violates WP:UNDUE
 * You will observe that at the main page of the university and at my.pitt.edu, the "PITT" logo you are wanting to use is not presented. This logo is not the main logo of the university. It is available at http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/. What is now in the infobox is what is represented on the university's main page. That is accurate.

Also, I'm growing increasingly concerned that people can not edit University of Pittsburgh articles without your approval as to the edits. You're undoing everything I do. This violates WP:OWN. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, since there is already a logo in the infobox, the second one (being non-free) fails at least two criteria of our non-free policy, notably WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Please do not keep re-instating it. Black Kite 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, some confusion there - Hammersoft and I were talking about different logos. I have removed File:UofPittsburgh Logo.svg from the infobox for the reason stated above.  I have no particular view on the copyright-free logo but I believe Hammersoft is correct about sticking to MOSLOGO as well. Black Kite 18:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this one is more arguable, especially as it's not a non-free image, but on the balance of probabilities I think he's right, to be honest. The "PITT" textlogo doesn't need to appear in the infobox - but if it appeared in a section of the article devoted to the relevant sports team, there wouldn't be an issue. Black Kite 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean File:UofPittsburgh Seal.svg? Obviously a logo of an organization should be in its infobox. Regarding my class, check out Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009. Feel free to ask me more questions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding File:PittPanthers.png, I am not sure it has to be in the infobox, but it is certainly fine for many other places and articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Statue images
I'm not interested in debating this as you'll probably accuse me of copyright paranoia again (or who knows what else). This is simply friendly notification that a number of images of statues you have uploaded to Commons, such as File:Panther at Heinz.jpg, will be deleted. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for three dimensional works of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Therefore, photographs of such works of art carry copyright protections as derivative works of the original, protections which the photographer of the work does not possess the right to release. I'll wait a week before tagging them to give you an opportunity to move them back here if you feel they would qualify under our non-free content policy for inclusion in one or more articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Response
Paco,

I'd just take a deep breath for a few seconds here. As a matter of fact, just take a day off from teh whole subject. Dont' think about it or do anything with Wikipedia. Just relax.

Once that's done, we'll chat. As much as I disagree with Hammersoft on some subjects, he makes some valid points (not all of them mind you, but some).

There's nothing that is going to be solved today and nothing that will be solved in the near future. Realize this issue is merely a symptom of a problem for which I've been personally working towards fixing for nearly a year. It involves probably 200+ editors and there is not a simple fix or anything I can say that will help in the short term.

Like I said before, just take a break and a deep breath and I promise we will talk tomorrow and I will help in any way I can. To summarize what I can see: you are both not wrong and you are also both "right". — BQZip01 — talk 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Parran.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Parran.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Miami
Tell me. Is this too much to ask?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for my first barnstar! JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification
If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:National Championships
Looks good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks. Division 1 -> Division I, and fixed the Lafayette link (in case Lafayette Leopards football ever turns from a redirect to a standalone article). Good work. DeFault<b style="color:blue;">Ryan</b> 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
That was excellent cleanup work on the Panthers of Pittsburgh article. I'm thoroughly impressed! :D

Also, I love that you have lots of public domain pictures here on wikipedia. I could use some of those for PittHistory. Do you know of any other places I might find public domain images? Thanks!! Tustin2121 talk 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [read message] Thanks for the detailed history on the WUP name. At least I know that what I wrote in this coming PittHistory strip is accurate, then. I just got the impression that they didn't want to be associated with Penn University. I guess my impression was wrong. Thanks again. :) Tustin2121 talk 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's this thing I'm doing for the Pitt News. I don't know if you're on campus, but occasionally I get a strip on the back page of the Pitt News about the history of Pitt. It's new, so you didn't miss much if you're interested. (I'm hesitant to call it a comic, since jokes are secondary to historical accuracy, but it does fill the comic strip slot.) This is the reason why I've been looking up historical facts and public domain historical pictures. I've been getting my pictures from Carnegie Library (they've been letting me use them as long as they're prominently credited). First strip Second strip Third one should come out on Monday. I didn't get a strip made in time this past week, and I've been trying to work out some printing kinks in the meantime. Tustin2121 talk 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for all that! I didn't even know some of the stuff you mentioned there. Now I'm sure I'll have more than enough sources for some of the things I write. (Now if only the Pitt News will consistently print the thing...) Thanks again! Tustin2121 talk 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Connick
Nice article! Have you submitted it as a WP:DYK? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've submitted it on your behalf: you'll find the submission here: Template talk:Did you know. If all goes well, it should be on Wikipedia's front page in a week or so. You might want to keep an eye on the nomination, in case the reviewers suggest any changes to the article or the hook. Cheers! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Grace Cathedral windows
I reverted your edit about the Connick windows. Less than half the total (I'd guess) of the windows at Grace are Connick. The windows in the new half aren't, and neither are the Endeavour series in the clerestory. Adding something about the windows would be valuable, but your version was a bit misleading. Somewhere in storage I've got a copy of the guidebook that they give to the docents. If I can dig it up I'll add more details, but feel free to go ahead if you've got more. Thanks! -- BPMullins | Talk 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good work! It improves the article greatly. Thanks again. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Pittsburgh ‎
Thanks for your edits. FYI, this is article is a subject of an educational assignment - you may want to review it and suggest improvements to the students working on it on its talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be sorry about :) Feel free to edit the article if you want, but it may be better for now to offer students suggestion and see how that works. You know - give the man a fish... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting on that talk page; would you like to review the article and see what else may be missing / needs to be commented upon? The more reviewers, the merrier :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandwich of Images
Thanks for a small education in policy. I'm not sure it's good policy, but I'll mostly obey it because the alternative is anarchy. However, the goals set forth at [[MOS:IMAGES}} ignore reality -- Wiki policy is to make pages usable on windows as small as 800x600, but the most common size today is 1280x1024 and screens wider than 2000 are readily available. Some of us run dual or triple screens; many run more than one browser. A given article will not generally look good over such a wide range unless it contains a lot of text, few images or boxes, and no multi-column lists. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that while IE is the most common browser, it does things in an ill-defined and unpredictable way. Firefox, among others, is much more predictable, but not as widely used.

Charles Connick is a case in point (seems good to use a graphic artist's bio for a graphic arts comment). The 3 column list of locations is supposed to occupy the whole page width. Therefore in Firefox, it must start below all the images called out above it. Firefox obeys the rules, and produces a large blank space above the list. The alternates would be to use a single column for the list, a list navbox that took only the left 2/3 of the page, write more text, have fewer images, have the images extend well below the text, or sandwich the text. I think the latter is best, but rules is rules....

(BTW, you have exactly the same problem on User:Crazypaco, a large blank next to the boxes because the columns or articles won't start until after the boxes. In Firefox at 1280x1024 you have two full screens with nothing to the left of the boxes. IMHO it would look better in both Firefox and IE if you made the article list a single column. It would also take less vertical space.)

I should add that some subjects have other things on the right. MOS:IMAGES does not actually say that you can't sandwich text between an image and an infobox, but that may be its spirit. However, I do a lot of work on lighthouses. 75% of USA lighthouses are on the National Register of Historic Places, so they need two infoboxes, Infobox Lighthouse and Infobox NRHP (the latter embedded in the former). Even a well known lighthouse often doesn't have enough information to fill the space to the left of the two boxes, so if there is more than the one image for the lighthouse box, and you were to follow the no-sandwich rule, you'd have an article that went on for several screens on the right, with a blank to the left.. . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. User:Crazypaco looks better now in Firefox, too. A favor, please -- I don't really have time to get deeply involved in setting policy (except for lighthouses and NRHP). Would you look at Francis B. Austin House and Bunker Hill School and suggest which adheres closer to policy -- or if there's another way, perhaps setting the images below the infobox (which seems a waste, although your point about PDAs is well taken). Many NRHP articles have the same problem -- more images than text. Often the building is on the NRHP for its architecture and there's only so much you can say. Or, if it's on for a famous owner, then the owner has has/her own article.. . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pittsealworkmark.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Pittsealworkmark.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.  Zoo Fari  07:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Upjbanner.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Upjbanner.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.  Zoo Fari  07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UPBbanner.png
 Thanks for uploading File:UPBbanner.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.  Zoo Fari  07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Pittsburgh: new Valued Image Candidates on Commons
Hello Crazypaco, I remember your expert review of the Valued Image Candidate for Cathedral of Learning. Would you please be kind enough to have a glance at these two new VICs on Commons? Commons:Commons:Valued image candidates/Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.jpg and Commons:Commons:Valued image candidates/Pitt - first building.jpg. There are two questions to be answered : a) Is the scope relevant (=wide enough)? b) Is that image the most illustrative one in its category on Commons for the chosen scope? Your opinion is welcome; feel free to express yourself on each review page, if you want. Thanks a lot in advance, --Myrabella (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:PosvarPitt.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PosvarPitt.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Poliocathedral.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poliocathedral.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HailtoPittPAHall.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HailtoPittPAHall.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Duquesne NIT
Hey CrazyPaco, long time admirer of yours and your Pitt site from long ago. Not a pitt or duqusene man but a big time fan of everything Pittsburgh. I found two links on GoDuquesne honoring the 1955 NIT champs and touting them. I would turn your attention to this article as well.

I do appreciate reading your analysis, and the rankings info did surprise me, although I will note that when you say independents that unlike today it's my knowledge that being independent was the norm in the 1950s save for the 8 or 9 member SEC and 8 or 9 member Big Ten among big schools.

I however feel that wikipedia and other outlets do a grave disservice with historical titles and in the context of the 1955 Duquesne team it is actually more relevant then the 1964 Browns title in the pre-merger NFL, or the 1955 Dodgers title team (4 time zones from their fanbase of 52 years), or the 1955 Warriors title team (not many Golden State fans in metro Philly today reminiscing about how great it was seeing "their" team nor banner in the Wachovia Center, not many bay area residents waxing nostaligic about how magical that '55 team was for the city by the bay).

Sharing our common interest in Pittsburgh sports, it would be great to build a consensus to get the Pirates titles of 1901 and 1902 counted as 6th and 7th world titles, either that or delete the 1964 Cleveland Browns title and even the uncontested "champs of the season" from 1920-1932 for the NFL making the Steelers 6 Super Bowl titles where teams must win 3 or 4 in a row seem like small potatoes.

I am going far afield here but the 1901 and 1902 Pirates as world champions listed on wikipedia and the 1955 Duquense Dukes listed as NIT champions are far far far more relevant information then the bogusness of this page, in 1925 whoever won the season won the equivalent of a Steelers Super Bowl, at least that is what Wikipedia is peddlin, and I'd be shocked if anyone in the southwest partied in the streets either in 1925 or 1947.

Being an encylopedia I always thought giving relevant verifiable information was the goal, not judging it no matter how preposterous a football championship equivalent to a Super Bowl in the 1925 desert could be. I'll stop here there are hundreds of examples of this. Sincerly hope we can work on getting the 1901, 02 Pirates some respect a la 1964 Cleveland and I do feel as an encylopedia we should include the 1955 NIT. I do scratch my head on how Smizik and Steigerwald can be sucked into this, something seems to be missing for them to cite the 1955 title as more legit then the NCAA that year. Thanks Hholt01 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * excellent points in your response, being a die-hard Pittsburgh fan (but a fair one) I might be hoping that Smizik and Steigerwald are much more then they are. As far as the 1925 NFL title, my complaint with them is that they had no playoffs, or championship game, it would be similar to crowning the Washington Capitals champions a month ago.  It also highlights my other big complaint that fans that know nothing but LA sports celebrate banners from the Minneapolis Lakers, or proud Hoosiers celebrate banners from the Baltimore Colts (1971 Super Bowl), I was using the Cardinals as an extreme example, though bball and football were played in LA and Indy in the 1950s and 1970s respectively, why on earth on the Wiki page for the Cardinals and in their stadium they are "celebrating" a non-playoff non-championship game non-Super Bowl 1925 banner is beyond absurd.  Only using this as a bridge to relate that the 1901 and 1902 titles and the 1955 Dukes might be more relevant to a Pittsburgh family of trans-generational baseball or basketball fans--despite their status as "contested"--then a fan born in Tucson and a graduate of ASU that never left the southwest beaming in pride over the wiki page and stadium banner declaring his football team #1 in 1925.  I know I am taking on a whole big system here and it would open up tons of "special circumstances" but the 1955 notation in that light is much much more "encyclopedic" then half the franchises "titles" on here.  As noted in the first paragraph of Smizik the 1955 champ Pistons weren't in Detroit or even Michigan and the 1955 champ Dodgers and Warriors weren't in cities on the Pacific Coast but the Atlantic Coast, in that light the Dukes winning even a second tier title is far more relevant then the wiki page for LA, Detroit and Golden State sport teams.  Anyway don't mean to go on a rant here do appreciate your extensive research.  Will be in touch. Hholt01 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

about the information you reverted
Here - it was added by one of my students as part of the assignment (they are supposed to add a constructive edit to a page of their choice). I have a favor to ask - could you explain to the student why the information was removed, so they can learn from their mistakes? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Allegheny Observatory Tour Info
Hi CrazyPaco,

Sorry I'm a Wiki newbie, thanks for the info. I'll try to make the tour section more encyclopedic.

Lou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naboc1 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pittsburgh Panthers baseball
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Landmarks
Pertaining to this edit: Great addition! I had been in a conversation with User:Leepaxton a while back on the talk page about the nuances of being on this list. Thanks for clearing things up! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Philadelphia County
I find this quite interesting, but have some worries. Mainly - is this biting off more than you can chew?? Well go for it, if you think it can be done well. One worry is about the photos that will go in the list. I get the feeling that in general they should not be of the markers themselves - but in some cases the marker is about all there is to photograph. Case in point File:Printz.JPG in Delaware county, or your photo of a marker in Adams County. Pictures of adjacent fields could be taken, but .... Perhaps more importantly the signs are copyrighted, so we can't upload files that are just the signs. Including a bit of scenery helps convince the copyright police, but perhaps the Printz photo is close to the edge. If they saw a whole page of this, they might freak out. I have a bunch of photos of NRHP sites in Philly (and hope someday to complete the whole city!) and I snap markers when they overlap with NRHP sites (and sometimes when they don't). But I've always considered these to be info/directional snapshots rather than something I'd upload. In any case, good luck with the project and in a couple of weeks I may have time to contribute a bit. Smallbones (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Photos look good - I hope you can get this across to everybody who gets involved. A good example goes a long way.  Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw your comment on Smallbones' talk; are you planning on doing Beaver County? I have photos for a decent number of the sites, but I can remember many times bicycling past another one.  Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please use on the talk pages, please. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link and the reminder. You'll not need to worry about excessive amounts of copyrighted text in my photos; File:Beginning Point of the U.S. Public Land Survey Pennsylvania.jpg is a typical example of how much of the signs appears in these photos.  Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pennsylvania markers are both copyrighted and trademarked. This may not be the case with other state markers. There are plenty of photos of PA markers and other state markers in Wikimedia Commons. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Washington County is awesome! I'll whip that one into shape in no time!--GrapedApe (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In general I support your initiative, but want to point out a few concerns: 1.) On notability, I think the overall list-articles of markers by county are Wikipedia-acceptable, but i am not sure of notability of every marker as a separate article. The list-articles are lists of links, mostly red-links.  Why not just list them and cover them in the list-article alone, with links only to already-existing Wikipedia articles?
 * They aren't complete yet, especially the larger counties with the larger amount of markers. Some of the articles only have a few red links. Allegheny and other Pittsburgh metro area counties are mostly complete if you want examples of how I envisioned them. It's wikipedia though, no one is bound by my initial vision. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

2.) Your new list-articles contain a number of ambiguous links, meaning links to disambiguation pages. I've been see these popping up in the "Daily Disambiguation" report that i browse sometimes.  For example, your link to Keith House, a disambiguation page, from List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Montgomery County.  It seems you should link instead to one of the places given on the disambiguation page.  In other cases, you would need to add a more specifically named entry to the disambiguation page.  This is not an urgent problem, just something to clear up over time.
 * Not done yet, I'm trying to get all the counties in first from the PHMC database...to build the scaffolding so to speak and to allow other editors to contribute in the mean time. I am more thoroughly completing the smaller counties as I create the tables. It's a big task with 67 counties and 2,300+ markers. Whether each entry is notable or not (same issue as all the red links in some of the NRHP lists), it gives interested editors a lot of ideas for new articles and photos, or at least the expansion of sub-topics in existing articles. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

3). Your pages call for photos of the markers themselves, but photos of historic plaques are generally not allowed by copyright law, unless the text is public domain or specifically released. I went through this discussion with wikipedia/wikimedia copyright people before.  It is quite likely possible to request and get copyright release from the state of Pennsylvania for the text of all of these markers.  This issue can be raised by me or someone else putting selected photos up for deletion due to copyright concern, but I'd rather first learn more. I'd just like to check with you that you are aware of these potential issues, and then to help you with more pointers if that would be helpful, so that you can address them where necessary.  Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.  I see from your statement at Talk:List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Philadelphia County that you are aware of copyright issues on the photos, good. Also, all of these list-articles could/should be added to world-wide wikiproject wp:HSITES, by adding to their talk pages. --doncram (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of this going in which is why I have added that notice to the discussion page of every county. The PA historical markers are not like the NRHP lists in that they don't necessarily denote a piece of property, so the images that may be appropriate are more open to interpretation. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I share your concern with the "Marker title" column. If it is the title on the historic marker, it may not correspond with either the article about that specific location, such as a house, or a person connected with that house, or even the third use of the building shown, such as Freedom Theater, which had two prior uses and articles named for those previous uses. On the other hand, an image in Wikimedia Commons may have an interesting and informative description of the building, and rather than have a Wikipedia article, that may be sufficient for many of the markers and their associated buildings. Wikimedia Commons descriptions don't have inline citations, so there is an opportunity to document a particular building without having cited sources. I expect that to be the case with Berean Institute on Girard Avenue in Philadelphia. I will put up a photo of the building, but I won't try to create an article. If someone else looks at the list, sees the Marker title and the building and decides that the Berean Institute is notable, and they can find reliable sources beyond what the historical marker says, they can go ahead. You are correct that some of the historical marker titles are not going to turn out to be notable subjects for articles. The lists are a worthy contribution to Wikipedia, but some caution is in order, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the topics are notable, feel free delink them. Again, it is good to check the PHMC database for the text and thus the context of the marker as the title is not always indicative. For the Freedom Theater example, the text mentions all three: the theater, the Edward Forest Home, and the School of Design for Women. The link to Edwin Forrest House seems to be appropriate as it mirrors the marker text very closely. I entered all of the markers so far in a standardized manner according to how they are standardized in the PHMC database. That is the only list of these markers and it was the simplest way to get the tables completed in the fastest, most accurate manner. I fully expect other editors to clean them up after the fact if they see fit. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, these issues are universal, instead of posting them to my talk page, I would suggest moving them to Talk:List of Pennsylvania state historical markers so other editors can be aware of and participate in any discussion and formalization of these pages. I still have 18 counties to go, so I'll be going through those before I come back around and help clean up the previously created tables. I'll also be away for a few days. Thanks for all of your help and input. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New Pages
Hey, I've noticed you have been making a large number of new pages about historical markers in Pennsylvania. Just a suggestion that request Autopatrolled status so that each and every page does not have to be marked as patrolled by someone else. Of couse this is entirely up to you though. Stickee (talk)  03:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Oops, you dont have the required number of created articles for Autopatrolled status. Stickee (talk)  03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually have well over 75 articles. Doesn't matter, I only have three more of the 67 counties to finish. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Beaver County list
Hmm, I just looked through the Beaver County list; I'm surprised how few there are, since I'm quite familiar with several markers that aren't on the list. Apparently markers such as this one just east of Darlington are local markers, not state markers. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The shape and design of that marker means it is either not a PA state historical marker or it is a very old one. It is also possible the PHMC database is incomplete. My guess is that it would be a local marker. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh is the county seat, and readers should know that.
An unregistered editor has removed the county seat information from Pittsburgh, but I think it is important for that to be stated in the article. Philadelphia, by comparison, is not a county seat, because since 1854 the City and County of Philadelphia are consolidated, and the government is almost completely consolidated, with the exception of a few "row office" elected officials left over from the county government, even in the 1952 Home Rule Charter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Meetup
Sorry to hear that :( If you are ever in Pittsburgh again, let us know and maybe we can organize a meetup just for you :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see File:Minquas Path Rose Valley.JPG on List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Delaware County
Above should be self explanatory and is referred to at the talk page of the main list.

BTW - I said something earlier about "if you think you can do this well..." Well there should be no "if" on it now.

Thanks for any comments. Smallbones (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Related to the overall list is the website Explorepahistory.com e.g. .  On their home page they list sponsors and partners, with PHMC being a partner.  In any case it looks like a fairly good resource. Smallbones (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted photos
Greetings. I received your message asking about a few images that were deleted. I want to let you know that I was not the uploader of those images, it was User talk:Conk 9. And, if you look at that user's talkpage, you will see that this user is a habitual copyright violator. --GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Conk 9, you might be interested to know that this user stole an image of yours, File:CathedralFromSS.jpg, that you had licensed as CC/GFDL, and re-uploaded it as a PD: File:Cathedral of Learning.jpg. In effect, this user has stolen from you and many other people, some of whom depend on photography for their livelihood.  Just wanted you to know. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cathedral of Learning.jpg and Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9--GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I get your point about letting Conk 9 defend his uploads, but honestly, would you trust anything that this user says? I know that I wouldn't. He was told again and again that he shouldn't upload any more copyright violations. Just look at the talk page, plus this older version.  This user has had 4 years to justify his actions, and has chosen not to.  --GrapedApe (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the source of those copyvios. Will you help me sift through Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9? I am at my wits' end.  Cleaning up after this guy is not my idea of a fun time on Wikipedia, but someone has to do it.  I've also taken it upon myself to try and upload replacement pictures for deleted ones.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Probably the best thing for you to do is to look for blatant copyright violations for speedy deletion. Also, please comment on the deletion discussions that have been started. At the CCI page, I have links to the discussions.  --GrapedApe (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Where can the coords be checked for PHMC markers??
In particular, for Franklin County, most of the coords seem to map into Adams or York County. I went to the database search to check, but couldn't find coords there. Briefly looked at some other places as well. Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, it's good to know where they come from. Now I get GPS for about 60% of the markers.  I'll probably check that these line up (at least in the same county!) and maybe correct them when the address and street view line up correctly.  Smallbones (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review
I apologize for my original terse comments, and I apologize for my close minded bias. These were very unnecessary. I have amended my comments, and added another. It could be that my first statement was made from the position of ignorance. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation
It seems like an unfounded accusation made by a suspicious account. I suggest you report this (User_talk:Brownspite) to WP:AN. PS. I am no longer an administrator; if I were I'd have handled it myself by warning Brownspite that he is close to harassment, which is a blockable offense (feel free to quote me on that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps; it is strange for a n00bie to (correctly) use a sockpuppet template a week after creating an account, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd post it to AN(I) ASAP, note that you may be away for few days. Hopefully by the time you are back, an admin will have removed the templates and warned Brownspite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue with the iconic World Series photo
I believe that the image to the right has problematic copyright status. You released it under the template self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5|migration=relicense, but because it's a reasonably-faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional piece of art, it lacks originality (per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), making it ineligible for copyright. In other words, if the original photograph by Silk were in the public domain, you could only publish your derivative work as being in the public domain, since you would have no personal copyright claim against which to relicense it.

Unfortunately, however, the original image is not even in the public domain to begin with. It was created in 1960. The copyright is held by Time Life Pictures, as this information page confirms.

I am not a lawyer, but my best analysis is that you would need to edit the image's information page to reflect the fact that it is copyrighted, and you would need to provide a fair-use rationale. Once you get to that step, I'd suggest overwriting the present skewed, unevenly-exposed photograph-of-a-photograph with a low-resolution, unwatermarked scan of the original, perhaps this file. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 21:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot I had uploaded that, which was before I was aware of such copyright intricacies. I put it up for speedy deletion. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)