User talk:Crazypaco/Archive 3

Reviewer granted
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also granted you autopatrolled rights per your request. Thanks for your hard work. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review
Hi, the journal's website rather clearly shows that it was never published annually with any regularity. Also, it seems evident that it is moribund. The two references that I removed are not independent (Peterson's) or don't even mention the journal (the newspaper article). I'm on the fence about taking this to AfD, as there is no evidence of notability. Up till now, no undergraduate journal has ever survived AfD, I think. If you know of any sources that (can help) establish notability, it would be great if you could add those to the article. --Crusio (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you just reverted again, saying "It is up, I'm contacting them to find out for certain." I hope you realize that that is a self-contradictory statement. If you need to contact them to find out, then how can you say that it is up? Can you also tell me why you are putting back those two references? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Washington & Jefferson Presidents men's ice hockey
Thanks, CP. By the way, I was inspired by List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks, and I decided to create a similar article about the Washington County History & Landmarks Foundation.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words!--GrapedApe (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Pittsburgh


Hello, this message is being sent on behalf of WikiProject Pittsburgh. You have previously signed up as a member and we are currently trying to determine any members that have become inactive or no longer care to be a member. If you still wish to be on the member list, please sign your name here. Thank you, on behalf of the project,  Grsz 11  21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Nice header, where'd ya get it? ;)

FAC of Washington & Jefferson College
I nominated Washington & Jefferson College for FAC, and I'd appreciate any comments/reviews you could give me: Featured article candidates/Washington & Jefferson College/archive1. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh event for Wikipedia's tenth anniversary
Hi! Since you're a member of WikiProject Pittsburgh, I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia Tenth Anniversary celebrations we're having in Pittsburgh on Saturday, January 15. During the daytime, we're going to be having a photo contribution drive where anyone can bring in their digital photos or prints and Wikipedians will teach people how to upload them and add them to articles, and maybe introduction to Wikipedia workshops as well. Then in the evening, we'll have fun at the Carson City Saloon. There will be free Wikipedia t-shirts and other goodies, as well. See the Pittsburgh meetup page for more details. I hope to see you there!--ragesoss (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Haywood
I hate to say it doesn't amaze me the thing surrounding Pitt football nowadays. Now what? Fire the AD, let the Stache back in.  Grsz 11 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Bradley
I saw that you reverted someone's edit to the Tom Bradley page. I made an addition to the page that said basically the same thing but I said only what was reported about it and included a reference. Can you make sure it is okay?--Rockhalla (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:MountainCatProudSign.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:MountainCatProudSign.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Winter Classic at Heinz Field
Crazypaco, I see that you removed the 2011 Winter Classic from the tenants at the Heinz Field infobox. All the stadiums that had ever hosted the Winter Classic from Ralph Wilson Stadium in 2008 to last years Classic at Fenway Park list the classic as a tenant. Stadiums that have hosted Superbowls like Ford Field, also list them as tenants, even though it was one game. Being a Pens fan myself, I'd personally not want to have it on the page, but for the sake of the other pages, I think it should be included. Mvincec (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! Mvincec (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:MountainCatProudSign.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MountainCatProudSign.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. --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

UPMC Hamot
We've had our differences...but I was happy to see you take care the merger of Hamot Medical Center with UPMC, and then to add some history to UPMC Hamot on top of that (I have been putting it off, feeling somewhat obilgated as it is in Erie, but I don't have the same interest in hospitals as other things). You made my day :-) Cheers, ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania class and importance
Thank you for The Working Man's Barnstar, but unless I get help, I am unlikely to finish the Pennsylvania articles without importance ratings anytime soon. If you edit an article with a Pennsylvania template, please consider adding ratings. If appropriate, add an Erie, or Lehigh Valley, or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh template, or ratings for those if missing, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox colors
Thanks for your wikiresearch and policy lookup. I actually like your colors better then the old ones (mine? I think been so long since I added them). Maybe because it's so new but the extra bright yellow I love but then hate but then love, not so much on the "Pittsburgh" but on the "History, Culture . . " line. But like it tons better then the blue and the colors I originally added. Maybe see how others like it, purposely wanted to leave this on your discussion page and not the infoboxes because I do like this combo of colors the best from all previous, maybe see if anyone says its too bright before we consider a change. Hholt01 (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Pittsburgh activity
WikiProject Pittsburgh is rolling out some new features (see our discussions at WT:PITTSBURGH). We are also trying to determine how many members are active, and interested in contributing to Pittsburgh content or coming to our real life meetups to discuss Wikipedia in general. If you could go to WikiProject Pittsburgh/Members and move your name from inactive to the active or semi-active group (depending on your interest in Pittsburgh issue and overall activity) groups, this would be great. Hopefully in a near future you'll also receive our first newsletter with various information on what we have been doing, and what useful tools are available. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 20:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for the link, CrazyPaco! I just found out about that book today and considered ordering it, but I didn't know it was online. I'll definitely check it out. Please feel free to add in any information you think might be relevant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankgorshin (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

km2 vs ha
Re University of Pittsburgh. You say "...precedent is km2 as alternate for acreage...". With all due respect to your erudition I would observe that this is something only an American would say. Everywhere in the metric world something relatively small such as a univerity campus or a city park is given in hectares and not in square kilometres. This is now true even in Canada where the use of the acre is being phased out, however slowly. The convention is square metres to square feet or vice versa (shopping centres), acres to hectares or vice versa and square kilometres to square miles or vice versa. To convert acres to square kilometers is somewhat like doing brain surgery wth a kitchen knife. Peter Horn User talk 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Paco I put a reply at User talk:Peter Horn. Cheers, Peter Horn User talk 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Make that User talk:Peter Horn Peter Horn User talk 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I made additional comments at User talk:Peter Horn Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)
Since you are a member of the WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, I'd like to invite you to the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15 (this workshop is open to general public, and is a joint imitative of CMU and Pitt). There will be another workshop held at Pitt in the Fall as well. It will cover how to include Wikipedia in one's course (WP:SUP) and also how to become a Campus Ambassadors. Pennsylvania has currently only one ambassador (myself) and it would be great if we could recruit at least several more. Ambassadors help course instructors, showing them how Wikipedia works, and interact with students. Many current ambassadors come from the body of students, faculty and university staff; it is a fun adventure, and adds to one resume/CV, to boot :) If it sounds interesting, feel free to ask me any questions, or to come to the workshop. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are usually far away. But perhaps you would be interested in the ambassador program, either in California or online? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be able to help with the on-line program. How would that work? CrazyPaco (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Text color in Infobox NRHP
Sorry it's taken me so long, but there was about a 2.5 week period where I only had internet on my phone because I was moving into a new apartment. I now have updates ready to be installed in the sandboxes of Designation and Infobox NRHP. Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator, so I can't install the updates myself. I've put in the editprotected request at the Designation template, and once it's been installed, I'll put in another at the NRHP infobox. For more details, see here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you hadn't noticed, Infobox NRHP was updated today. The documentation explains everything. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to comment on the template talk page or my talk!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation
Hey. You make nice edits here on Wikipedia. Something tells me you would be a nice contributor at drobos13 as well, which is a unique discussion environment where everything is pre-moderated and everyone is anonymous in public. It also has a very usable interface and has had over 11 years of R&D put into it. You would be part of the initial crowd of early adopters and be able to really get your voice heard. Please at least consider it and note that this was sent by a human being, manually, rather than some sort of automated bulk spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattlemake (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Portal on this day
Hi again CP, hope all is well, as they say "so we meet again" lol. Thanks for the kind words, a few questions for a more experienced wikiverse wikipolicy editor such as yourself in my reply. Hholt01 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for D-Scribe Digital Publishing
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I thought, who could it be that wrote a Pitt-related DYK? Thanks, Paco! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, when I did the bulk of my expansions and new article writing two years ago, I really didn't have any idea how DYK worked. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Washington Huskies football
I've been trying to preserve your change to the InfoBox at Washington Huskies football regarding claimed national titles, but there's an anon editor who has been constantly reverting it:. This may be a sock of User:Pasadena91, though I haven't confirmed this. Anyhow, rather than continuing to be involved in what has transpired into an edit war, I've decided to avoid editing the article for now. . . but at the same time, I'd like to have the number of claimed national titles in the Washington Huskies football article tie to the value at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. If you can assist with this content dispute, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, as expected the anon IP editor has struck again: .  And, of course, this editor chose not to participate on the article talk page.  Page protection sounds like a good idea at this stage. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Seals
– Connormah (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * responded. – Connormah (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Decided to vectorize - not sure if you'd think it'd be appropriate to add to the article (or if you'd want it for your webpage) – Connormah (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it fits in the article, really, as that seal wan't used for very long and there were so many variations of it, compared to the candle variation, the 1909 version, or the Western University version which I think were more notable variations. You could email it to me though if you like [username]@gmail.com.  Thanks for all of your work on the seals. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do when I have a spare moment. – Connormah (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As you might have noted
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pittsburgh. Perhaps you could help with that, or with Mellon Green? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical markers in Pennsylvania
For the first time in several weeks, I've had enough time to upload photos from a trip to Pennsylvania at the end of September. I've added several photos to the historical markers in Fayette County list, and I wonder if one other photo might apply. Is there some way to get coordinates directly from the PHMC? If I remember rightly, this house had a historical marker next to it (there's one you can see in the image, but it's for the Philander Knox House next door), and it vaguely fits the location for the "Birthplace of John Alfred Brashear (1840-1920) - PLAQUE", but I can't fine enough information or remember enough to be comfortable with adding this photo to the list. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay; thanks. The link you gave me is for the list's "Brashear House" entry, which is a few streets away; I've already illustrated it with File:Brashear House.jpg.  I don't expect to be back in the area for a long time, so I guess we'll need to leave it unillustrated.  Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand better. I'm still somewhat confused, however: the Brashear House photo that I gave you is on Market Street, two streets away from Front Street, where the "this house" photo was taken, and where PHMC says the PLAQUE marker is located.  Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

UPMC Logo
Hello, UPMC seems to have updated its logo again. I've uploaded a new version of it, so your logo is up for Speedy deletion. Thanks for originally uploading it! Best, Weatherman1126  (  talk  ) 04:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Request
Your input is requested in the following discussion: Talk:Michigan–Ohio_State_football_rivalry   Levdr1 lostpassword  ( talk ) 06:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pitt–Penn State football rivalry" article
Crazy Paco, as one of the keepers of the Pitt sports articles, I would like to get your blessing to move the Pitt–Penn State rivalry article to "Pitt–Penn State football rivalry." It is one of the last CFB articles that does not have an "official" rivalry name that has not already been moved to the "{school name 1)–(school name 2) football rivalry" article title format. We are also creating redirects on this pattern for all of the CFB rivalry articles that do have "official" names, or are otherwise named for their rivalry trophy.  This should make the articles easier to find for any interested reader.

If this is unobjectionable, please let me know, or just initiate the move yourself. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Top Words of the Year" article
I agree that this article is a non-necessary fork from the "Global Language Monitor" article and should be deleted. Enumer8tor (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Todd Graham
As a recent contributor to the Todd Graham article, and a Pitt alum (as am I, in both senses), I was wondering about your feelings about the departure of the coach. I am absolutely incensed that he couldn't even face his student athletes, left without notice, and gave the exact same press conference he gave 11 months ago. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Hail to Pitt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hail to Pitt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hail to Pitt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  P G Pirate  23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pitt Victory Song for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pitt Victory Song is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pitt Victory Song until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  P G Pirate  23:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for Authors of NCAA Records book?
I emailed the author/editor of the Official Records to ask about Sporting News as a major selector. You've been working on the NCAA FBS National Champions page longer than anyone, so I thought I'd ask if you had any questions for the editor while I was emailing him? Dolenath (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just answered that on the article talk page. I hope you get a response. A couple years ago when I was working on these tables, I never did get responses from them. There is also the issue of the Harris selections, which in no way actually names a national champion. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I got an email back saying thank you for the updates, but who knows if they'll actually use them. Guess we'll have to wait until August for the 2012 edition to find out. Dolenath (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ed Roberson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Saw your quotes
My pleasure :) PS. Do you think our University Times is notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As in deserving its own Wikipedia article? That's a tough one. The criteria is one or more of the following for newspapers...


 * have produced award winning work (It has at least won small local or regional ones. See here, here, and here for examples of awards for different articles.)
 * have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history (it has served as the official university paper for 44 years, since 1968).
 * are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (I think it is reliable and authoritative on Pitt and UPMC, the primary communities it serves and covers).
 * are frequently cited by other reliable sources (I don't see it "frequently" cited, but I know it has been cited by the PG from time to time when they run stories involving Pitt/UPMC, like here, here, and here).
 * are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets (Is Pitt and UPMC a non-trivial niche market?)

Other intangibles are that it is published bi-weekly from Sept through July, and does sell subscription for $25 a year, sell advertising space. It is published by the University, so it is its official newspaper of there university's Faculty and staff (whereas The Pitt News is the independent student newspaper). Likely you could make an argument that if a student newspaper is notable, so too should be the faculty newspaper. I'm not sure there is any coverage about the University Times itself though. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like you make a good argument it is notable. Do you feel like stubbing it? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll create it as long as you come in an make some edits so it looks more collaborative. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can think of anything to add or fix, I will. Mind you, American university journals are not my foremost area of expertise :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks excellent, I will nominate it at T:TDYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League university presidents
Based on your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, you might be interested in opining at Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League university presidents.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for University Times
Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar, Paco. Those yearbooks are a remarkably deep source of photographs. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indiana (state) historical markers
As you can see from the history of the PA markers list, I've finished comparable lists of IN markers; each marker involved more work because Indiana gives less information than Pennsylvania does, but the whole thing was probably less because there are just 517 instead of the 2313 you had to do. Thanks very much for the idea and for the general format. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kuntu Repertory Theatre
Thanks for your message. The newspaper article I referenced says "Last year, after Kuntu was cut adrift from its former home in Africana Studies at the University of Pittsburgh...." Yes, Kuntu's web site doesn't reflect this, but it also doesn't reflect their most recent production, reviewed in that same article. I believe their web site is simply out of date, with its last update, around May 2011, predating this development. I found another newspaper article which describes the situation differently, so I updated the page and cited that one too. StevenDoerfler (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Pitt Related Photos
Hi, Crazy Paco. Finally got around to uploading some of those photos I mentioned awhile back. They're here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Singregardless. There are a couple extra in there (One of Chryst from the Spring game, Woodruff street sign in Connellsville). If anything could be used (following whatever editing is needed - the lighting is horrible on a few of them), great! If not, I'll try and get out with a better camera and keep gnawing at the Pitt Photo WikiProject in the future. Singregardless (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)singregardless

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited David Tepper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC
A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia rivalry
You may be interested in Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia rivalry.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks!Marketdiamond (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Florida Gators football: "State Championships"
Hey, CP. We could use an objective, third-party opinion here: Talk:Florida Gators football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

NCAA Championships
FYI - Record book was updated this year and they fixed some of our concerns: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2012/FBS.pdf

For example, there's a note by Harris saying "#Does not compile final ranking after the bowl games so it is not included on the year-by-year listings", and Sporting News is no longer considered a major selector (after 2006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolenath (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

zoo presidents
Paco, I was in the Zoo from 04-05 through 07-08 and was an active leader part of that time and I started the Twitter account. Cohen left Pitt after 04-05. Nagy was the next president, followed by Smith. Jedlicka did most of the work even when Smith was there, but was president next. I am not positive about the ones after Jedlicka. I'm not sure what facts you believe you have that prove me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levance2 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dave J is a good friend of mine. He was at Pitt a long time. He must be confused. The info is wrong, but I'm not going to continue arguing with you about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levance2 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject ACC
Thanks, I've put the talk page on my watchlist. I think that your editing focus moving to the ACC is one of the few positives of conference realignment (at least from my baseball-centric point of view), haha. Kithira (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys. My Wikipedia editing has been closely associated with the Florida Gators of the SEC, but I am also an alumnus of the University of Virginia and I have relatively strong knowledge of the Cavalier sports program, too.  If you need any help with Cavaliers-related issues or topics, please feel free to ping me.  I would be happy to pick up some of the UVa slack.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFB strandard navbox
Hey, CP. Can you please identify with specificity what additional links/content you would like to see included within the standard navbox? Or, more particularly, within the Pitt Panthers football navbox? As I have said on other occasions, while I am in favor of a standardized form of navbox, I am also in favor of a measure of flexibility to accommodate the particulars of individual programs. So, bottom line, what are you looking for? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Pittsburgh School of Law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Sell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes for national championship teams, etc.
CP, I was not suggesting that there must an "identically titled article" in order to support a navbox per WP:NAVBOX. By custom and long-standing precedent, we have accepted an article called, for example, "1984 Washington Huskies football team," to support a 1984 national championship team navbox. When I looked four years ago, there was no 1990 Washington Huskies football team stand-alone article; now, there is. There still is no stand-alone article for the 1984 Washington Huskies football team; there is only a redirect to a 1984-specific section within the "Washington Huskies football, 1980-1989" season-decade article. I've been through enough TfDs to understand how the majority of non-sports editors interpret the "stand-alone article" requirement for navboxes, and section-specific redirects usually don't cut it for navboxes for honors and awards because the existence of a stand-alone article is treated a pretty decent proxy measure of the worthiness of the underlying honor or award to have a navbox. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, this whole thing is moot because I agree these should be deleted. I am just weary about Wikipedia voicing an indirect defacto opinion on national championships and I've also had this issue with Washington's MNCs come up before with the CFB NC article. I neither believe they are legitimate nor do I believe UW makes a claim on them (a double strike, you're-out-for-sure type of thing). That's why I'm trying to be very careful in how to shoot them down (using UNDUE because I think that is strongest) otherwise they'll become an issue in the NC article again. Two different issues, but neither really has anything to do with the CFB team Navbox standardization and control by the WikiProject. BTW, I agree that the NCAA's definitions have no official standing except unto itself, but then neither does its definition of "Consensus All-American" which are ubiquitously used by the media and also doesn't mean "all major ones".  As the official record keeper of the sport, I would personally place more value the NCAA's definitions than a random sports writer. As a side note, in the case of "major selector", the NCAA Statistical Service acknowledges consulting two college football historians, Robert Rosiek and Tex Noel (Tex was also involved with CFDW) which gives the NCAA more credibility in my eyes than, for instance, what Dennis Dodd writes about the topic in some blog. But there isn't really much use to going round and round on it as I'm not sure that it really affects anything. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I hope you at least saw where I was coming from. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * CP, I did not know that Dennis Dodd had any credibility! LOL


 * Regarding the definition of "consensus All-American," the NCAA is the only game in town, so the NCAA's definition is generally accepted by the teams and the mainstream media. I hope the NCAA stats guys are not trying to similarly position themselves as the arbiters of consensus national football champions, too.  Their arbitrary choice of four selectors to determine their own pet version of "consensus" is a mistake; the mainstream media have never really recognized any "major" selector other than the two major media polls, and for good reason.  As I'm sure you know, virtually all of the pre-1935 selections were not contemporaneous selections made immediately following the seasons; they were based on ex post facto statistical analyses that were performed 20 to 100 years after the fact.  The only manner that I can think of to determine a champion that is worse than polling would be polling or stats compiled years after the seasons had ended.  It's bizarre that anyone takes any of the retroactive championships seriously at all.  My favorite anecdote on point was when Alabama AD Mal Moore woke up one morning and decided to claim four more pre-1935 championships for the Tide.  It's a running joke among SEC fans that Alabama doesn't even know how many championships it has!  It's also a little sad that a proud program like Bama feels compelled to engage in this bizarre exercise.
 * My guess is the NCAA could care less about this stuff. It has consistently presented the same info, with minor tweaks, mostly just adding successive champions each year. With the amount of emails it likely receives from disgruntled fans, they probably regret ever publishing it.


 * As far as retroactive selections, if properly researched, I see them no worse than others. Even for more modern selections, it is not like teams were on TV regularly until well into the 1980s. Even today it is highly questionable how many games coaches watch (the answer is nearly none if it doesn't involve a team on your schedule). You always have to keep reminding yourself that never in the history of the sport has a champion been decided on the field; but rather with opinion, statistics, or a combination of both (such as the BCS today).  I don't automatically view a historian's research or a computer's algorithm as less valid than Dodd's opinion. Each presents a separate POV. And while I agree that it seems strange that teams like Texas A&M and Minnesota suddenly claim selections that they've been silent on for 100 years, who is to blame them if other schools have done the the same, now or in the past? It is somewhat surprising, if you go back and read early 20th century newspaper articles and school yearbooks, that national championships were no less discussed, proclaimed, and disputed than they are today. The difference was they were arguing about the teams themselves, not about systems of selections. There just was no uniformly accepted system of officiating the issue. Because of this, IMO, claiming these pre-dual poll era titles makes more sense than claiming non-poll post-1950 selections. This modern era, where the polls have become entrenched in popular culture as the definitive selectors, at least gave the schools some sort of blueprint to attain a championship selection and this affected how they play (eg running up the score), scheduled, and even caused them to directly lobby for a higher rank, not to mention affected bowl parings and the importance bowls.  So school's claims after 1950 that aren't derived from the AP or Coaches' are more dubious because they run counter to the the system that had become widely accepted and recognized. Of course, that sounds like the opposite of what I was arguing about the NCAA and its selectors, but that is my personal view, not my "neutral" point of view. So yeah, if comparing the legitimacy of claims between schools, I'd personally view Georgia Tech's 1952 claim, Tennessee's 1967 or Ole Miss' 1962 as less legitimate than a school dipping back into the less defined pre-1950 era.


 * Separately, one thing I really can't stand is when people arbitrarily assign the founding of college football with the first release of the AP poll. That is a severe misunderstanding and mis-colorization of history with recentism, insults the sport's grandfathers, and arbitrarily assigns less value to a team's achievements pre-1936 or pre-1950 simply because of the lack of a modern polling structure (not to mention ignores the changes in that structure). But I digress. CrazyPaco (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kidding aside, if you want to take a stab at formulating a written guideline for determining which "championship" teams get to have navboxes, I would love to see it. My initial take is that any team that received championship recognition from (a) both major polls, or (b) one major poll and a sizable plurality of the other selectors should have a championship navbox.  (I don't believe there is an example where a team received a selection from only one of the major media polls, and none from the minor selectors, right?)  I think we can cite multiple sources that will yield the same result in virtually every season, including CFDW and the NCAA.  I don't think that makes Wikipedia a "super selector"; I think that means we are simply recognizing mainstream practice.  As for the 1951 MSU Spartans, well, tough luck.  Neither of the final major media polls recognized MSU as the national champion, and we can't invent a MNC for MSU, regardless of what happened in Tennessee's bowl game.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My guideline would pretty much say if your school claims a MNC based on a third party selection, then it is legit to list. If it is legit to list, I guess you can have a template. Even with all the above that I said, I still don't believe it is necessary to decide on the legitimacy of school's claims, and that is what that guideline would be doing, interjecting my bias agains GT, UT, and the like. But right now, there really isn't a problem with the existence of such templates, and even in the hypothetical where these existed, we are talking about a small handful of extra nav templates which I don't see as being as much of an issue as potentially introducing my or others biases. The title of the nav template could be changed from "Consensus" to "NCAA-designated major selector" to "CFBW recognized" to "claim" accordingly to what it best represents. Wikipedia presents the information and lets readers decide. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I watchlist DL's talk page, here I am. Not going to get into the meat of the discussion here, but I had to chime in on Dennis Dodd.   Remember the College Football Performance Awards fiasco from the fall of 2010?  Dodd wrote the most legit article about that crap here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/11825131.  I emailed him about what when down on Wikipedia, but never got a response.  The dude's got zero credibility.  :) Jweiss11 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar to those football awards, you should see some of the obvious COI promotional edits for various academic rankings that spring up. CrazyPaco (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Pittsburgh in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Pittsburgh for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Hospitals
Welcome to the WP; any contributions welcomed! I notice you have assessed some articles, which is great. You should be aware that it has been agreed at WP:MED that hospitals will be tagged at WP:Hospitals only and not also at WP:MED, unless there is a true Medicine reason for being there too (which is rarely the case).welsh (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Pittsburgh Panthers football All-Americans
Awesome job there. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jweiss. It was mostly cobbled together from the information previously existing on the year-by-year lists of AAs, which really deserves the credit.CrazyPaco (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of sports logos in conference articles
Thank you for dealing with this, CP. I had been keeping a skeptical eye on the recent additions of the non-free image team logos to the SEC article, but, expecting controversy, and I had procrastinated in dealing with it for several days. Please feel free to ping me if similar issues arise in the future or you need back-up on this and similar issues. My position on point is pretty clearly stated on Hammersoft's talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it is taken care of for now. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:PittPSClogo.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:PittPSClogo.png

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Panthers softball
Hi, Crazypaco. I've recently started the College softball task force, working to help expand Wikipedia's college softball coverage. One of the articles we are looking for is a Pittsburgh Panthers softball article. I know you have an interest in the Pitt athletic teams, so I was wondering if you would be willing to consider adopting it and writing a team article. Let me know if you're interested, and thanks. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Butler County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here
Hey Crazypaco

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

ACC
Interesting! Did you manually google each topic, or did you have some sort of automatic / semi-automatic method? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562453392 your edit] to Atlantic Coast Conference may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cross country and Cross Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fw: Pitt Women's basketball
Hi CP, hope things are great for you. I checked this out and this editor is correct wayyyyy back I started this article but have since been far removed from it and probably would not be the best available to address this editors concern. See more here. Thanks in advance for any expertise you can contribute.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  19:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pittsburgh Panthers men's soccer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cleveland Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Retired jerseys
Has Jweiss11 stated his position against retired jerseys in team templates?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please ask him directly whether he would oppose the addition of retired jersey content recently deleted from template space through the TFD being added to team templates. It might be the case that if the separate templates no longer exist he may not oppose their addition to team templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)