User talk:Leepaxton

Bill Monroe Image
I uploaded your picture of Bill Monroe's gravestone at commons. It's avaiable under the terms of GFDL. The yodeling cowboy (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks for the notification. Keep on yodelin', yodeling cowboy.  Take care, and peace. Leepaxton (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mattress Factory images
This is a friendly heads-up. Your images at Mattress Factory (1,2,3, 4, 5) are copyright violations, since they are derivative works of copyrighted material. If you would like to keep them on Wikipedia, you will need to tag them with Non-free 3D art and write a Fair Use Rationale. This image (Image:MattressFactory-PoemHouse.jpg) is a good example to work from. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.--HoboJones (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information and notification. I changed the licensing information on those images as you suggested, so hopefully they are all right now.  Thanks again for informing me about proper protocol regarding images of copyrighted art work.  This is much appreciated.  Leepaxton (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Protest song: Paul Robeson
Do you have any references that confirm that the concerts Robeson played following the HUAC incident were specifically protest songs? Otherwise, I'm not sure why Robeson is in this article. There were many people unfairly persecuted by HUAC, but that of itself does not make them relevant to an article about protest songs.--Edgewise (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's the recording of Paul Robeson The Peace Arch Concerts (link), recorded at the the event mentioned in the article. If you look at the list of songs, you will see that Robeson performs "Joe Hill", which is a protest song if there ever was a protest song.  The "notes" at the external link previously provided state the following:  "In the early fifties, forbidden by the U.S. government to travel abroad - even to Canada - Paul Robeson appeared at the Peace Arch Park on the U.S. and Canadian border and sang and spoke to 30,000-40,000 people, proving to the world that his voice and his beliefs could not be stifled."  Leepaxton (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Leepaxton/Images and other images
BJBot had it correct. While you did take the images, in the United States there is no freedom of panorama. What this means is that if you take a photograph of a copyrighted statue, the statue's artist retains rights to the photograph, as it constitutes a derivative work of the original 3D art. I've re-removed the images from your image sub page.

I also found two additional images that were improperly tagged: These images now require fair use rationales.
 * File:SriSriGauraNitai2007.jpg
 * File:PrabhuphadGold1997.jpg

Note that according to your fair use policy at Non-free content criteria #9, the use of non-free images outside of the article namespace is not permitted. Thus, you can't not visibly display these images. However, you can create a list of them without displaying them as I did above with the two statue images that now require a rationale. I've removed the rationales for your userspace that you added to the images that BJBot removed because they are invalid rationales (no rationale being allowed to display the images in userspace). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense, but to me, this all seems to be (at least) a little bit ridiculous. First of all, how do you even know that the two above statues are copyrighted?  Are we just to assume that every statue that is visible in a public place is copyrighted?  Therefore, nobody can use the images outside of ONE article that they are used in?  What the heck?!!  So, others can use these images all they want outside of Wikipedia as long as they provide a "Fair Use Rationale", but I can't use them in my own Wikipedia gallery of photographs that I myself have taken?  I mean, come on, people snag these types of images all the time and use them with their licenses and then provide a fair use as to why they are using them someplace else, and that's all right, but I can't use these as representations of images that I myself have taken for use on Wikipedia?  WHAATT?!  Where do I complain about this further? Leepaxton (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page. Can we keep the discussion in one place please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will try to plead my case on the WT:NFC. Leepaxton (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I found three more images that are non-free. I removed them from User:Leepaxton/Images and added them in a section at the bottom. See User:Leepaxton/Images. This is a demonstration of how you can still list them without displaying them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense to you personally, but I'd like to say that I find this all to be a big pile of Catch-22. So, anyone can re-use these images on the net (say on a blog) or elsewhere as long as they honor the license(s) and provide a "Fair Use Rationale", but I can't use these images in my own Wikipedia gallery even with a "Fair Use Rationale" stating reasons for use in the gallery of images that I've photographed for use on Wikipedia?  "UnFair Use Rationale?"  Holy Moses and Freakipedia, and that's about all I have left to say on this matter. Leepaxton (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh photos
Thanks for the new NRHP photos; I'm glad to see a better image than mine for the Heinz plant. I took that picture while a passenger in a car that was driving by, only intending to get a casual picture of an impressive building; only later did I realise what it was and start to wish that I'd gotten a better shot :-)  Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Nyttend. It seems that our shared interest in historical sites has made our meeting on Wikipedia inevitable.  I'm glad to hear from you.  I thought your picture of the Heinz plant was good, but it was from a distance and I took one from a better angle, in front of the old Eberhardt and Ober Brewery (now part of the Penn Brewery) building.  I'm glad to hear that you are fine with my replacing the image, because I don't want to step on anyone's toes.  I only replace an image if I feel that I have another image that is significantly better than the existing one.


 * Also, there are some things I wanted to discuss with you regarding the listing of coordinate information for historical sites. In my opinion, the coordinates for a site should at least be touching or on top of the actual building or historic location itself.  The reason I say this is because some sites aren't as easy to find as others, and having the benefit of seeing (via online satellite view) the actual location pinpointed on top of the site is very valuable for those trying to find the location.  For example, the John Frew House could've been easier to find if the coordinates listed actually took one to the house and not the garden on the corner.  I changed it so that the coordinates now take one directly to the house itself, and I think it makes more sense to do things that way.  What are your views on this topic? Leepaxton (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct all the coords you can. After all, we have specific addresses for these properties, so it's not original research to change the coords when they're not accurate.  The reason that they're not always correct is that the maps from which these coords were made years ago are often somewhat inaccurate, to the point that coords aren't exactly correct.  Combine that with errors in figuring the UTM coords and transcription errors of correct coords (some properties have badly mistaken coords, such as a few that are listed on the Equator and one that was listed as being at a few billion degrees north latitude), and we have a problematic system.  Still, there's nothing better, so all we can do is fix away.  Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, would you be willing to upload photos at the Wikimedia Commons? Photos on Commons are just as easy to use as photos here, but they can also be used by any other Wikimedia Foundation project, while photos uploaded here can only be used at the English Wikipedia.  Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've thought about using Commons, but I don't like their format as well, honestly, and my intent is for the images to be used primarily on Wikipedia. I don't see why they couldn't be used on other language Wikipedia pages, but I figure the people who would be interested in the historical sites in this geographic area probably speak English mostly anyway (or "Yinzer").  I know that people can move the images to Commons as long as they honor the licenses, but I'd honestly rather they didn't move them, for the most part, because it can be a pain for the simple fact that people don't always do it properly (or they don't credit the images properly).  There's a certain protocol that should be followed, but it's not always followed.  It's more of a pain, in my opinion, and then I have to go in and edit them anyway.  It's so easy to upload images to Wikipedia and copy and paste the licenses from a previously uploaded image (and just change the info to fit each one), but on Commons you have to fill out each individual line.  There's more to fill out, and language-specific hyperlinks to add each link and whatnot.  If you take a bunch of pictures, like I do, that can be more time consuming.  I don't prefer it, honestly, and it's just a personal preference.  I hope you understand, and hopefully it's not a problem.  If it becomes a problem down the line, then I'll try to resolve it somehow.  Hopefully things are all right for now though.  Leepaxton (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean about "on Commons you have to fill out each individual line"? I always use the same format for Commons uploads of images of the same sort: for months my NRHP photo uploads have used essentially identical wording, so you can easily copy/paste from a previously-uploaded image.  I'm also unclear what you mean about "language-specific hyperlinks": when I write a description, I only ever use English, which is quite acceptable on Commons.  Moreover, if you upload them yourself, there's no question of them being misattributed or otherwise mangled upon moving to Commons.  Finally, it's technically impossible for any project to use an image uploaded to another project, except for an image on Commons: for example, you can't link to a file on the German Wikipedia.  I'm not saying that you're not allowed: MediaWiki doesn't have that capability.  Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, see the descriptions of File:Morgan House, Bloomington.jpg (taken last week and uploaded two days ago) and File:Byrnes & Kiefer Building.jpg (taken in July and uploaded in September). I simply copy/pasted the format and changed the details.  Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Back when I went to Commons and clicked "upload file", and then "entirely my own work", I remember that it took me to a form that had extra spaces to fill out, date, permissions, etc. But I just copy and paste what I upload at once on Wikipedia.  I got used to doing it that way, and it works well for me.  Are you saying that I can just copy and paste the whole thing into that one space that says "Description" on Commons, and that's that, or do I have to fill out the specific line for date and permission and whatnot?  I'd rather just paste the whole thing at once and not have extra things to sign into.  Honestly, I never got into using Commons.  I got into this whole Wikipedia thing just to make Wikipedia better, because so much of what I saw on it was subpar back when I first came around.  If I could license the pictures that I upload for free educational use on Wikipedia pages ONLY, then I would do that as soon as possible.  But they don't seem to have that option. So then I had to use those free license things, and then people sometimes would move my images over to that Commons site without warning and incorrectly label them, and I never cared for that.  So, I developed a bit of an aversion to Commons.  I thought it was crooked.  Like I said, if I could license the pictures that I upload for free educational use only, then I would do that and nothing else. Leepaxton (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I'm not trying to pester you, first off. As far as the upload form — some time ago, Commons switched over to an upload form that I don't understand at all.  Instead of using Commons:Commons:Upload, you should look at Commons:Special:Upload.  While it has the spaces to fill in, that's only suggested; you're not forced to use any specific format, and it would be quite possible to put in no description other than "Photo of ___.  Made by Lee Paxton.   ."  Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I figured you weren't really trying to pester me. You just know your way around Wikipedia better than I do.  I know it can be a bit frustrating with the way some people mess around with the articles and things.  Gosh, I've seen some wild edits!  But the thing about the photos, especially with these historic sites, I like writing in the descriptions with the hyperlinks to the articles.  I didn't originally write descriptions that were that lengthy, but now I like it when the information is real specific, especially with these historic sites and their coordinate data and all that.  It's a fun treasure hunt of sorts.  I'll tell you what, some of these historic sites aren't always located in the best of places, or in the best of conditions either.  That old Logans Ferry Powder Works was a real dump!  It stunk of sulfur enough to make one ill.  I wouldn't advise anyone to go there.  Also, some of these places are on private property, and some people don't seem to want us history buffs around, so, who knows, we may end up getting shot just trying to take some pictures before the end of this.  I'm no fool though, I know the ways of the photographer, and I never purposely walk onto anyone's private property.  But, I sure do get as close as I can and zoom in for dear life before the Yosemite Sams come out a' blastin'.  I wonder if National Geographic is a dangerous place to work, especially now that there doesn't seem to be as many semi-nude island women in the world these days.  Now they might go to even more dangerous places.  I'd rather be in Polynesia enjoying the scenery rather than meeting Yosemite Sam or his Middle Eastern counterpart.  But, since I am where I am, and I ams what I am, I'll be lookin' over as many old, rickety places as possible to try and find some diamonds in the rough.  Because, you never know what you might find out there in this crazy old world.  You just never know until you try. Leepaxton (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, you've sure gotten some great photos of Pittsburgh! I've been doing categorization over on Commons, and some of your work is getting totally lost, with very improbable categories. I see you have a lot more experience here than I do-- (haven't read all the discussion above)-- but I'm sure wishing your stuff had gone up on Commons in the first place instead of making a lot of duplicative work! Pretty please with sugar on top? Also, who knows, with all the Eastern European connections in Pittsburgh and international students, there might be more interest in non-English Wikipedias than we expect. Photos of Homewood, whoo-hoo! An intrepid pursuer of our cultural heritage indeed! Djembayz (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Djembayz: I get what you're saying, in fact I've asked Leepaxton about commons myself, but he's been pretty clear that he prefers to leave his images at en.wiki. Since he's probably one of the best photographers here, we should probably respect that.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, in my opinion, Leepaxton is more of a historian/ethnographer of Pittsburgh than a photographer. Some of his photos, like at 184 38th Street, are going to be part of the permanent historical record of the city.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you both for the comments. GrapedApe basically summed up my views on things as far as the photographs are concerned. I mainly take the photos for use in the articles. If someone feels that a photo could be used in an article in a different language on Wikipedia and they would like to move it to Commons for use in an article in that way, then I ask that they please list the images exactly as they appear in their original descriptions (with proper coordinates and everything) and that they follow the style as listed in. If my images are moved to Commons, I would like them to appear listed like that (with the information under "Source" and "Author" to appear as listed there). The person who moves the images doesn't need their goddamn name listed up there, that information can be found in the history anyway, and that is what pissed me off before. I do not intend to quit this dang Wikipedia website though, I've just taken a little break because some motherfuckers on here act with no regard towards others. GrapedApe is cool though, and so are some other folks on here. So, my feelings about Wikipedia are like that quote from that Buttcrack Mountain movie, "I just can't quit you." Actually, the quote was, "I wish I knew how to quit you", and I just looked that up on Wikipedia (see, this can be a useful website). So, I'll probably be back in the Blazing Saddle before too long and taking some more pictures and adding more information to Freakipedia when I've got some more funky stuff to contribute. Right now I'm mostly just messing around with old record players in my spare time. It would be cool if I could start taking some artsy-fartsy pictures of nude women instead of just buildings, but I figure I'll got back to taking pictures of architecture again. There are some Alden & Harlow houses in this region that I know about from some of my old funky books that aren't on any of the historical lists too. I like their style. Leepaxton (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you, Dincher, I'm honored to receive The Photographer's Barnstar. I hope to keep contributing to Wikipedia as time goes along.  I hope people enjoy the images, and I hope the images improve the articles.  That's the main thing.  That picture in Crafton was just there waiting to be photographed.  So, I just snapped it really quickly, and didn't think much about it.  Then, I got home and looked it over and thought it was right for the article.  That wedge-shaped building is called the "flatiron" building, because of its shape, and they say it used to be the First National Bank of Crafton.  It might be older than the Campbell Building, perhaps circa 1890 or so, and I think it's a much more interesting and impressive building too.  I have no idea why the Campbell Building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  It seems a little odd when one sees the more impressive, larger, and possibly older building directly across the street, but sometimes I do see this type of stuff happening out there as far as these NRHP sites are concerned.  Oh well, I'll keep snapping pictures.  Thanks again.  I do appreciate the recognition. Leepaxton (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and keep up the good work! Dincher (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Street Bridge
Thanks for the explanation; I was unaware that this specific piece of land was part of McKeesport. Just one point that needs to be clarified: where does the bridge end? When the McKees Rocks Bridge reaches the southwestern bank of the Ohio, it's in Stowe Township, but we list it there and in McKees Rocks because the bridge ends in McKees Rocks. Given that the NRHP lists the bridge in both communities, I'm just curious if perhaps this bridge continues past the Glassport borough boundary. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found the end of the bridge on Google Maps, but I can't find the borough boundary. Can you explain exactly where it lies?  USGS topo maps generally show municipal boundaries, but there's an oddity in this locality, so the maps aren't really helpful for this purpose at all.  Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the Jerome Street Bridge touches down to land fairly quickly on both sides of the Youghiogheny River. I would say that it would still be in that McKeesport section just based on what I remember seeing with my own eyes and comparing with the maps, but I'm not 100% on that.  Of course, the road itself extends to Glassport, PA.  So, perhaps it was listed that way because the road leads there?  Or maybe over time designations have changed?  I don't know, but the McKees Rocks Bridge is another story.


 * The McKees Rocks Bridge touches down in three places because it has two main parts instead of just one. There's the large part which extends from the Brighton Heights neighborhood in Pittsburgh into the "Bottoms" neighborhood of McKees Rocks, PA.  Then, from there, another portion of bridge starts up again and then leads to that wedge of land that is considered Stowe Township.  I think that's how it goes, anyway.  Heck, I cross that bridge about once a week and I'm still trying to make sure I've got it all figured out.  Haha, well, I guess I'll keep on trying.  Leepaxton (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me to understand. I've never been over the McKees Rocks Bridge; as far as I knew, it only had one main part that crossed over part of Stowe Township before reaching the ground only in McKees Rocks.  Two not-so-related questions: (1) Do you know if the experimental mine is still there, and if so, if average photographers can get to its entrance?  I'm not suggesting that the photo you found is inappropriate or that it must be replaced; I'm just curious.  (2) I believe that the license on that image is incorrect; would you be willing to offer an opinion about it at WP:MCQ, header "Proper license for image from US government website that's older than the government agency?"  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Experimental Mine is not open to the public. I went there, and there is a security guard and a big metal fence around the extent of the property. There's a sign on the gate that says, "No unauthorized photography." The site is owned and maintained by the U.S. government, and there is a research facility there too. The brick building by the main gate says, "U.S. Department of the Interior", and, "U.S. Bureau of Mines" (like this symbol). I spoke with the guard (a nice guy), and he said that he could not let us in to see the exterior portion of the mine (even supervised, with or without a camera). The old mine shafts are on the hill above the main entrance, and I found no way to see them from the road, or anywhere else around the exterior portions of the fence. We drove around the extent of the property, and could not see the mine shafts from any location that we encountered. There is a sign near the main entrance that says the following: "Bruceton Research Center - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - Pittsburgh Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory - Pittsburgh Site - U.S. Department of Labor - Mine Safety and Health Administration".

As far as that image goes, I don't know what the proper license would be, but I figure it would be a "public use" type of image from the United States Department of the Interior. "PD-USGov-Interior". The reason I think that is because the National Energy Technology Laboratory page says, "1910: The U.S. Dept. of Interior (Bureau of Mines) established the Pittsburgh Experiment Station in Bruceton, Pennsylvania." Well, that's the Experimental Mine they're talking about, and that image is dated 1910, and the image was found on those government web sites associated with Interior - Mines - CDC - NIOSH. The U.S. Department of the Interior was established in 1849, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines was established in 1910. The main agency, of course, being the Interior. So, I would say that's the logical source of the image. Leepaxton (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Phipps Conservatory images
To the person (Hammersoft) who would like to remove my images of the interior of the Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens, I disagree with your view that the three images in question ( File:Phipps5.jpg, File:Phipps4.jpg, File:Phipps2.jpg ) are not acceptable for use in the article just because they show some depictions of three dimensional art glass by Dale Chihuly in them (even though there's a fair use rationale included for use in the Phipps article). Also, I notice some people have included pictures of Dale's art glass in the article about him, some in a gallery too, clearly "depictions of three dimensional art" somehow with completely free licenses and no fair use rationales in any of them. If it's all right for those images, then why not for my images? Anyway, the main reason I disagree with your view that the three images don't have a "proper" fair use rationale for the Phipps article is because there are no other images on Wikipedia of the interior of the Phipps Conservatory to demonstrate what the inside gardens of this historic place actually look like. Therefore, I think it's important to the article, in an encyclopedic way, that is, if anyone is interested to see some inside views of the Phipps Conservatory. It's kinda pretty in there, but that's my opinion (though I know I'm not the only one with that opinion). The plants are there, growing around the art glass. Well, I don't know, but I'm not going to take just one person's opinion on this matter. If you would like to press this further, then I'd like to request that this be reviewed by others who can help decide in a consensus-based way whether or not these images are important enough to be included in the article. Leepaxton (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The images on the Dale Chihuly article are free images due to the fact that where those images were taken freedom of panorama exists for 3D works of art. That is not the case in the United States. Since the images can not be free, as they are taken of installations in the U.S., they must be used under terms of our policy and guideline. This isn't my sole opinion. It isn't just me saying this use isn't allowed. The guideline is specific to this use, as such use does not pass the threshold of significance required by the policy. I am reverting your restoration of the images to the gallery. If you believe this is in error, you may take the issue up at WT:NFC or WP:NFCR. As is, the use is not supported and it will require a change in guideline for it to be acceptable. We do not permit galleries of non-free images in almost all cases. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, wait a minute, according to the current policy regarding Non-free image use in galleries, there is some room for exceptions if a good fair use rationale is supplied, and it says the images "should be considered on a case-by-case basis." It seems that you are the one making the case that these three images are not justified by the fair use rationales provided for them, and I disagree.  The policy does say that exceptions should be "very well justified", but now this gets into the realm of opinion regarding what is "justified" and what is not.  And when it comes to these types of things, I like to get more opinions than just one or two.  So, I do intend to bring this up over at Non-free content review, though who knows if I'll get a fair shake over there or not, since it seems you are one of the main contributors over in those parts.  Well, I guess I'll see you over there anyway. Leepaxton (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, only one other person has contributed there. I wanted to add that a lot of hay is made out of the "exeptions" and "almost all" types of wording sometimes found in policy/guideline. Those areas where you find wording like that are not meant to be used to cover all areas. They are meant to anticipate corner cases where unusual circumstances not anticipated by the policy/guideline arise. This is not such a case. It is well possible to go into great visual detail about the conservatory without having to gallerize non-free images. As Andrew noted, a single image to note the Chihuly work is appropriate. But, the guideline/policy isn't going to allow liberal use of non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the images add to the article, and I don't think they are superfluous or gratuitous either. I guess it's too much to ask that people should be able to see each image on Wikipedia in the gallery relating to the Phipps Conservatory article, but I would rather they are able to see one image than none. Leepaxton (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now orphaned the remaining two non-free images in the gallery, File:Phipps4.jpg and File:Phipps5.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I figured you would do that sooner or later. Leepaxton (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Pittsburgh Landmarks
Thanks for adding all of those pics to the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks! Did you take them yourself or just find them on here? I originally created the list, and I searched for images but couldn't find any of the ones you uploaded. I also noticed that you went on a mass relinking escapade haha.. You know you can link to a redirect page, right? That's what they're there for... Linking to the redirect page still gets the user to the right place and also makes the list page size smaller, which is desirable for long lists, although it probably won't make much difference on a list of this size. Thanks again! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, and yes, I took all of the photographs in question (as indicated on the images themselves). As for redirecting pages, I usually do that because I generally think it's better to redirect pages to the actual page that it takes one to anyhow.  It's just a personal preference.  Oh, and as for the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks, I have a feeling there are a lot more places that are recognized as such by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation (PHLF) than just the items on that list.  The reason I say this is because there are a number of old buildings in this town that have PHLF markers on them that are not included on the list.  For example, when I took the picture of the B. F. Jones House (aka Jones Hall), I noticed that the building beside it, West Hall, has a PHLF marker on it that says, "Historic Landmark - West Hall - 1911-1912 - Thomas Hannah, Architect - Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation".  This building has a PHLF marker, but is not on the list.  I figure that you "created" the list on Wikipedia simply by copying it from the PHLF website.  Well, this is something that I had planned to do months ago, but did not because of lingering questions I had as to whether or not this was the complete list of Pittsburgh Landmarks.  For other examples, if you go to Category:Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks, you will see a number of places that are not on this list.  Here's an example, First Church of Christ, Scientist (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), on its Wikipedia pages says, "In 1977, First Church of Christ, Scientist, was designated a Pittsburgh Historic Landmark by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation."  The building is still there, and I see no reason why it would have been removed from the list.  I also doubt that all the other places with markers on them have been removed from the list too.  If you drive through Pittsburgh, you will see numerous other places with the PHLF markers on them, and many are not on the list.  Most of the sites on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania also have PHLF markers on them.  Not only that, but I think there are even some sites with PHLF markers on them that are outside Pittsburgh city limits too.  So, I've always wondered about that list on the PHLF's website, as to whether or not it's complete, and I should probably write to them and ask if they have a complete list of ALL the places that have markers on them that are considered to be Pittsburgh Landmarks. Leepaxton (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied at Talk:List of Pittsburgh Landmarks. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then I will reply there also. Leepaxton (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Beaver County pictures
I just saw that you finished the Beaver County list; thanks! If you'd been a few days later, I would have filled it out, since I too was in the area on Saturday. Did you participate in the bike race at Raccoon Creek State Park? I too photographed this cabin in campground #1 in the late morning, at which time lots of cyclists were riding in the Grass Roots Racing event. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't participate in the bike race, but I saw there were signs posted saying there was some sort of bike event or triathlon or something. It seemed like a pretty cold day for anything like that though.  I was just there to get some pictures and complete the Beaver County NRHP list, since the Allegheny County NRHP list and the Pittsburgh NRHP list have been completed.  I got the picture of the David Littell House at 2:10 PM, and then went over to Raccoon Creek State Park.  We drove all around the park, and when I saw that cabin, I thought it looked pretty similar to the cabin in the old Civilian Conservation Corps public domain picture that you uploaded four months ago.  There's a chance it might be the same exact cabin, so I thought it would be neat to have a before-and-after picture to compare.  The Coca-Cola machine and the telephone sign seem to be the main difference between the two images after about 75 years.  I snapped the picture at 2:32 PM.  After that, we went over to Frankfort Mineral Springs and got some pictures of water trickling down the rock at around 2:48 PM, and then got some pictures of the old stone building above the springs at around 2:53 PM.  A sign in front of the building says, "Frankfort Springs - 19th century health spa restored by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy through the generosity of Thomas H. Walker of Sewickley, Pennsylvania 1970 - 1971".  The building had no doors and no windows on it, but still seemed to be somewhat sturdy.  Near the roof, a wooden window shutter on one side flapped in the wind against its frame.  We went inside and checked the place out, and it isn't in bad shape despite some light graffiti which ranged from the crude (like "my cuntry boner won't go down"), to a silly image of a person and various ridiculous comments, and inside I noticed a circled pentagram near the door to a separate interior room with a slightly raised concrete floor.    I'm sure some wild times have gone on in that old health spa, haha!  If one ever needed a place for temporary squatting, it might not be so bad, though one would probably encounter the park's tourists on a regular basis (and the park's rangers too).  It's probably mostly a makeshift party place for wild teenagers, twenty-somethings and old hobos and bums these days.  Nevertheless, it still seemed like a sturdy building.  They should probably board it up to keep people out of it in order to better preserve it, or charge admission to the Dionysian Ordo Templi Orientis-styled orgies that may go on there, like a party pad or brothel to generate income for the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks, and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  Haha, just joking, of course, but the park should probably do something to fix that old health spa up rather than just let it sit there and continue to get skanked up.  Well, that's my opinion anyway. Leepaxton (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnesville
The high school is in Barnesville, but the Friends school is slightly outside. If you look at Google Maps, you'll see that there's a darker area surrounding the village streets. Look at page 12 of this Census Bureau map of Ohio, which includes Belmont County; you can see that the darker area on Google Maps equals the village's corporation limits that are marked on the Census Bureau map. Google shows corporation limits in this way for communities nationwide, so you can typically use it alone to decide whether or not a community is in a municipality. Please note that incorporated minor civil divisions aren't included in the dark areas, while census-designated places are; consequently, if you look at northern Allegheny County, you'll find that Curtisville and Russellton are highlighted but that the rest of West Deer Township isn't. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was pretty sure that Barnesville High School was inside the corporation limits of Barnesville, Ohio. The Olney Friends School is pretty close though, but it's just a little bit outside according to Google Maps.  The reason I brought this up was because in your description on why you edited some things out of the gallery (on the Barnesville page), you said, "Removed lower row of images; these are outside the village".  Well, the High School is not outside the village, but I can see why an image of the high school might not necessarily be important or notable enough for inclusion in the village's Wikipedia page gallery.  Though, I did add an internal link to the Barnesville High School Wikipedia page on the village's Wikipedia page, because it was mentioned in the education section of the article (as it should be).  Olney Friends School is also mentioned, as I think it should be too, but perhaps its inclusion in the gallery of images isn't necessary either (and, according to Google Maps, it is just barely outside of the village's corporation limits).  However, according to Google Maps, it kinda looks like the old Quaker Meeting House, which is part of the Friends Boarding School and Ohio Yearly Meetinghouse Historic District, may barely be within the village's limits (or, perhaps on or very near the line).  Quaker Meeting House coordinates: 39.98732°N, -81.15074°W.  In "map" view, notice the odd square wedge of land that seems to be in the darker "village corporation limit" part?  I can't precisely tell if that is meant to include the old Quaker Meeting House at those coordinates, or the other building just to the west of it (at these coordinates: 39.98791°N, -81.15174°W).  Anyhow, that little square wedge of land seemingly between the Quaker Meeting House and that other building possibly being included within the village's corporation limits seems kinda different to me.  I wonder, what may account for that?  Also, the Barnesville Petroglyph, which was seemingly named after Barnesville, is something that could probably be mentioned in the article.  As to you removing the reference to Karin Bergquist, lead singer of the band Over the Rhine (who attended school in Barnesville, and graduated from Barnesville High School in 1984), for being "nonnotable", well, I don't really agree with that view.  Over the Rhine is a fairly well-known band (in some circles), their CDs can be found in the Carnegie Libraries of Pittsburgh, and I've heard their music played on National Public Radio stations like WYEP-FM.  There's information about them on |THE|RHINE&sql=11:fpfwxqt5ldfe~T1 allmusic.com.  I remember there was an interview or something and Karin mentioned growing up in Barnesville, Ohio.  Anyhow, I think Over the Rhine's lead singer having attended school there is probably notable enough for inclusion in the Barnesville article. Leepaxton (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard practice is not to include redlinks in notable people sections, except for people that are automatically notable: professional athletes and holders of high political office. As for the pictures, I misunderstood when I removed the high school picture; sorry for the confusion there.  As for the Littell House — Hookstown is not in Greene Township; it's a borough.  The source for the infobox, the NRIS, gives Hookstown as the nearest community to the house.  The house really is in Hanover Township, although just slightly: between Mechanicsburg and the house, there are "Welcome to Hanover Township" signs as you head south on 18.  Does this make sense, or have I not yet explained properly?  Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but the David Littell House is about seven miles from Hookstown, Pennsylvania, so it still seems a little bit odd to me to put that on the Wikipedia page when there's a closer community nearby (Harshaville, Pennsylvania). Leepaxton (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our source says Hookstown; while we can say with precision that it's in Hanover Township (look at the USGS map of the area, by the way), we could argue all we want about what type of community suffices or is nearest if we ignore the official source. Depending on the source is the only real way to go with WP:NPOV, since your opinion of what should be counted as the nearest community may well differ from someone else's.  Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've found out that these NRHP lists aren't always accurate in some cases, and that's why I've tried to include better coordinates and information along with the pictures I take. You said, "Depending on the source is the only real way to go with WP:NPOV, since your opinion of what should be counted as the nearest community may well differ from someone else's".  To that I say, look at the map and see the difference in distance from the David Littell House to Harshaville compared to Hookstown.  According to driving directions on Google Maps, the house is about 6.8 miles from Hookstown, and only 1.2 miles from Harshaville.  Also, Harshaville has a page on Wikipedia, I don't know who made it, but it's there and I guess it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, since it hasn't been removed yet, and that's the closest community to the house with a page, and that's why I chose that one.   So, I don't see how that violates WP:NPOV, since these are things that can be measured on maps (coordinates: 40.55673°N, -80.40412°W) and linked to pages on Wikipedia.  The house is only 0.6 miles to Mechanicsburg, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, but that community doesn't have a Wikipedia page to link to (yet), so I thought to link to the closest community that had a page (for the sake of "Wikipedia notability").  If and when Mechanicsburg, Beaver County, Pennsylvania gets a page, I would say that the David Littell House should probably be linked to that community.  But, I guess you see things differently.  And on another issue, you said, "Standard practice is not to include redlinks in notable people sections, except for people that are automatically notable: professional athletes and holders of high political office."  So, a redlink to an athlete (Tim Moxley) on the Barnesville, Ohio, page is all right, but a redlink to a musician (Karin Bergquist) whose group is not a redlink page (Over the Rhine), which was mentioned in the same sentence as her name, is somehow not all right?  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point as well. Leepaxton (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to my Pennsylvania Atlas and Gazetteer for Hanover Township. Thanks for explaining the situation more fully; I hadn't realised what you were saying about Harshaville supposedly being in Raccoon Township.  I don't know that part of the county at all; during four years of college in Beaver Falls, I was all over the northern and much of the eastern parts of the county, but I almost never visited the southern part.  Last Saturday was the first time that I'd ever been on 18 past the zinc plant in Raccoon Township.  Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last Saturday was the first time I'd ever been in Raccoon Township, Hanover Township, or Raccoon Creek State Park. Hey, too bad we didn't cross each others' paths with cameras in our hands, haha, now that would've been comical.  Anyhow, it was a nice State Park, and I'll probably go back there again sometime. Leepaxton (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, and yes that would have been funny :-) The only Wikimedia photographer I've ever met in person is Mvincec, who (among other things) helped me fill out the entire Butler County list a year ago, but I had known Mvincec for more than a year when we each realised that the other was active here.  By the way, would you be willing to try to fulfill some photo requests?  After I left the park, I headed south to Washington and points south, but I got lost on the little roads of southern Washington County, got turned around, and gave up on finding the Fisher Site because of lack of time.  On my way home on Monday, I drove through Greensburg, photographed the Richard T. Foley Site, and tried to find Fisher again but got confused again.  If you get the chance, could you try to get out to Fisher?  It's really rural, and beware the lack of road signs at many intersections.  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about trying to get pictures of some of the sites in Washington County, Pennsylvania, and eventually in Greene County, Pennsylvania. I'm more familiar with Washington County than Greene County.  Also, maybe eventually I'll try and get some pictures in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia (Hancock County, Brooke County, Ohio County, and Marshall County).  I've seen Mvincec's pictures on Wikipedia, and I've also seen a number of pictures by you (of course) as well as a guy called Malepheasant.  That guy must really get around.  He takes a lot of images of waterways and creeks and whatnot.  Well, I figure I'll be south of the city of Pittsburgh at some point to take pictures.  Getting pictures in Allegheny County and Pittsburgh wasn't too difficult, since I live in Allegheny County.  I was even basically able to help complete the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks as it currently stands, though there are numerous other places in this county that have those PHLF markers on them.  I think it might be easier to find places if they are closer to civilization, and not too far out in the sticks, if ya know what I mean, haha.  Locating some of these rural sites doesn't always seem as easy as locating the ones in towns or cities.  Therefore, I usually like taking pictures in places that are a little more inhabited and easier to navigate, but sometimes it is nice to go out and see things that aren't always as easy to find.  So, at some point in the not-so-distant future, I'll try and see what pictures I can get out there in the boonies, and hopefully I won't run into any guys who remind me of the movie Deliverance, haha!  (cue Dueling Banjos). Leepaxton (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Tim Kiser (or whatever Malepheasant's name is) does get around; I've run into his pictures plenty of times. While we're on the subject of sites out in the sticks (yes, I do know what you mean; a week ago, when I was at Sprowl's Covered Bridge in Washington County [ location ], I had a hard time getting to the bridge because the road was so steep that the car nearly got stuck on the gravel!), do you know if you could try some that are closer to heavily populated areas?  The Locus 7 Site and the Household No. 1 Site are both quite close to I-70 along the Mon and the Yough respectively, and the Deffenbaugh Site (while quite far south of you) isn't too far from the state highway along the Mon.  There's also a petroglyph site near Perryopolis, but I'm not entirely sure of its location; I wanted to go there a week ago, but I definitely didn't have time after getting half-lost in Washington County.  By the way, about the PHLF landmarks, is there a list for sites outside the city such as the Edgewood Presbyterian Church?  Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On Saturday, I got a picture of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a National Historic Landmark. This site brings up another question about exact location.  The Meadowcroft Rockshelter page on Wikipedia says that it is in Jefferson Township, while the NRHP list on Wikipedia for Washington County, PA, previously had it listed as being in Independence Township (until I changed it to Jefferson, for reasons I will now explain).  Well, I checked as many maps as I could online, including the Washington County Pennsylvania Township Maps, and it seems to me that Cross Creek is the dividing line between Jefferson Township and Independence Township.  At this location it seems that north of the creek is Jefferson Township, and south of the creek is Independence Township.  The creek runs very near the site, and the Rockshelter is on the northern side of the Creek.  So, it seems to be in Jefferson Township.  Do you agree?  The community of Avella, Pennsylvania, is a couple of miles or so to the southeast of the Rockshelter, on the southern side of the creek, and that community is in Independence Township.  But, it looks to me like the Rockshelter is in Jefferson.  There is supposedly a covered bridge on the NRHP very close to the Rockshelter, but I don't know how to get to it yet, and the day was off and on rain.  Some of these sites in Washington County may be a little bit tricky to get to.  We passed a few sites on the way that probably could be on the National Register, but aren't yet listed.  There's a Presbyterian church that was built in 1864 called Cross Creek Church.  Also, there's an old public school building in Burgettstown, Pennsylvania, which is now apartments, and the front of it said, "A.D. Public School 1895".  There were some nice, old houses and farms out that way too, but then I looked at the NRHP list, and just about everything up that way on the list is a covered bridge.  Now, I don't really have anything against covered bridges, but there are seven covered bridges up that way on the NRHP list, and other places that probably could (and/or should) be on the list but aren't.  Anyhow, about the PHLF landmarks list, the only ones listed right now are the ones within the city limits of Pittsburgh, and even that list seems questionable as to whether or not it's complete (in my opinion).  I discussed this issue a little bit with User:Dudemanfellabra on Talk:List of Pittsburgh Landmarks.  I think he meant well in creating the list, but I know there are a number of places in the city with PHLF markers on them that aren't listed on there or the NRHP.  Also, there are a lot of places with PHLF markers outside of the city limits that aren't on any list either.  I tried to calculate the number based on the PHLF website total of 525, and once factored into how many are currently on the PHLF list and the NRHP, there are at least 282 (or more) other possible sites that aren't listed.  I guess the quest continues... Leepaxton (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How did you get to go to the Rockshelter? It was originally on my itinerary for my trip last week, but I decided not to go there after I found that their website said that they were closed until May.  Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When I plotted the location given by the NRIS onto my Pennsylvania Atlas and Gazetteer, I thought that it was in Independence Township. Thanks for correcting my error.  And yes, the Devil's Den bridge is supposedly there; if I remember rightly from what I've read, it's been moved from its original location to a park at the Rockshelter complex.  Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry to confuse you; I meant to say Pine Bank Bridge — it's what you get when you don't look at the source when writing :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rockshelter is closed until May, which I didn't know until I went all the way out there. One can still see the Rockshelter from Miller Road though, so I snapped that picture during a break in the rain.  Down the road a little bit past the Rockshelter there's another road (Village Road) that leads up a hill to a museum, presumably near where the covered bridge may be located, but it was blocked off with a gate and probably will be blocked off until the Rockshelter opens up in May.  I figure I'll go back there and check it out when it opens up.  I would've taken more pictures last weekend, but it rained off and on.  I'll probably get some more in the near future.  Washington County PA may be a little bit tricky, since some of these places are way out in the sticks.  I'm not as jazzed up about this county, because of all the winding country roads (many in need of repair), but I'll try to see what pictures I can get. Leepaxton (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of these places are definitely out there :-) Nice covered bridge pictures, and thanks for the coord corrections.  I quite appreciated the nameplates on all of those bridges; it helped me (somewhat) to know where I was going.  Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Nyttend, the old coordinates for that Lyle Covered Bridge actually took me to another bridge (a closed, rusting metal bridge), so I put the correct coordinates in for the covered bridge and now hopefully no one else has to go the wrong way and walk a mile through the woods. The metal bridge could possibly be dangerous for some folks to walk over (though I walked over it), and fortunately saw an older woman walking through the woods.  I asked her where the covered bridge was, and she replied, "Which one?"  I said, "The Lyle", and she said, "up the road and down another, about a mile."  She was right, and fortunately I ran into her out there because I'm not sure I would've found it otherwise.  The bridge was where she said it would be, and it was quite nice too.  A wooden sign right beside "The Lyle" indicated that Hillman State Park started right there too, even though Google Maps says otherwise.  This brings me back to my wondering as to whether or not the old Quaker Meeting House in Barnesville, Ohio, is in that village's corporation limits or not.  I got a picture of it the last time I was there.  Also, there's an old Quaker Meeting House at the Friends Cemetery in Quaker City, Guernsey County, Ohio, and the sign on it says, "Friends Meeting House - Built in 1821 - Oldest Building in Guernsey County", and it's not even on the National Register.  It probably should be.  Well, the oldest buildings aren't always on the register, some are and some aren't.  Since Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is primarily my main area of interest and focus these days, I put together this write-up about the oldest confirmed buildings in the county.  But as far as pictures for Wikipedia's NRHP list, right now, Washington County (PA) is what I'm trying to work on, little by little.  I see that you've taken some pictures there as well.  Perhaps I should ask you what images you've taken (if there are any other images you've taken pertaining to Washington County PA's NRHP list that you've yet to upload?), so that we don't tread over the same places.  I really don't want to clash over who gets to what site first.  If I knew you had pictures of an area already, or were going to be in an area to get pictures, then I would go to another area to photograph.  I don't see much sense in overlapping.  Time and gas are spent driving and traipsing around to these places, many of which are out in the sticks.  So, if we could maybe work out a "Gentlemen's agreement", of sorts, pertaining to what we each are planning to photograph in the area, then maybe the other guy wouldn't have to go way out in the sticks superfluously (unless he wanted to, just for the heck of it).  Well, tell me what you think, because it could save time and we could carve up territory a lot more quickly that way. Leepaxton (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh barnstar

 * Thank you, I appreciate it, and I love the city of Pittsburgh. Leepaxton (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:JohnMcMillanLogSchool1780s.jpg
Just a heads up: I have used your image of McMillan's log cabin as a "Selected picture" at Portal:Washington & Jefferson College. It's located at Portal:Washington & Jefferson College/Selected picture/5. Thanks for the great picture. I'd love to see any more that you have from Canonsburg or the rest of Washington County!--GrapedApe (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the "heads up", but I honestly don't appreciate people moving my images to Commons without listing the images exactly as they appear in their original descriptions and following certain protocol. When moving my images to Commons, please follow the style as listed in this image. Thanks. Leepaxton (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm sorry if that irked you. I tried to follow good protocol, using the CommonsHelper tool, which preserves the descriptions and other information. From what I recall, the only parts that get mussed up in the transfer is the geocoding templates. I've tried to figure out how to fix that problem, but the location templates are different at commons.  Also, as far as I recall, I've left all of your images here after moving them to commons.  Let me know if there's something in any of the images that I have moved that did't work right, and I'll see what I can do.  You do great work, and I just want to make sure that your images are available to the greatest number of people.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you want to keep an image on Wikipedia, tag it with NoCommons, and it won't be deleted as a duplicate.-_GrapedApe (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the explanation. The reason why the Commons is not my preferred choice is because it's more of a pain to use than standard Wikipedia image uploading (and that's my opinion, and I go into further detail about that elsewhere on this discussion page), and then some people move some of my images to Commons and drastically edit the descriptions. It's happened a number of times, and some people don't even give me a "heads up" about it (at least you did, so thanks for that). But, sometimes I don't even see this type of stuff happening until the image has been completely moved to Commons and the original image that was uploaded to Wikipedia has been deleted. When that happens, a record of the original image description from the original upload is gone, and if they've drastically edited the original description then I can't always remember all the details that I typed in the original. That kinda pisses me off, because I try to get all the information correct with coordinates and dates and whatnot. Some of these places are in "B.F. Egypt" too. Then, some jag-off will move the images to Commons, screw up the descriptions, and put their name ("moved to Commons by such-and-such") right up there by the name of the author, and I think that's bullshit. I also think Wikipedia should integrate their image upload process so that all free-licensed images uploaded to any Wiki will automatically go to Commons (compatibly) with the same descriptions and everything intact from the original. So, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter if I upload something from this or that Wiki, if it's free licensed, it should all go to the same place anyway and be listed in a way that is compatible with all Wikis. The reason I prefer uploading through standard Wikipedia is because I can more easily copy and paste the whole shabang of my images (as far as licenses and whatnot) all at once. Through Commons, they give you these little lines you have to fill out individually for this or that field, but on standard Wikipedia I can just copy and paste the whole template from a previous image, change a few things here and there, and it's on. It's a lot faster and easier when you upload a lot of images at one time (as I sometimes do). Plus, I just think it's a lot better and easier all around. The images that I take are meant for specific use in Wikipedia articles, that's my intention anyway, and I don't really want to just upload a bunch of images into a free image dump. I could go elsewhere if I wanted to do that, but that's not what I'm here for. I want my images to be used to try and help improve the articles and lists on Wikipedia. Sorry to let it pour out on you, I'm not ticked off at you, but that's the way I feel about this issue. Leepaxton (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough--everyone has their preferences. One thing that might make Commons more palatable to you, regarding the information templates, is activating the old-style upload form layout.(In commons, go to My Preferences>Gadgets>Improved navigations>Use the old-style upload form layout.)  You do good work, and I hope you keep it up! --GrapedApe (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read through this. There is also a basic upload form that just lets you copy and paste things in. I use this all the time, but I have no idea if it circumnavigates your coordinate issue. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tried what you suggested on Commons, and it does work (although it doesn't transfer the old coordinate data properly, but perhaps something could be reworked). There's a way it can be done "the old fashioned way" and still work on there, but I've got a bunch of pictures on regular Wikipedia already.  Haha, oh dang it all!  Not only that, but then Commons wants you to put all your pictures into categories and stuff like that.  I just upload pictures for Wikipedia articles and lists that need images, so it's easier for me to do it my old way, but then sometimes people move them to Commons without getting the descriptions and info correct.  Heck, I still think Wikipedia should integrate their image upload process so that all free-licensed images uploaded to any Wiki will automatically go to all of the Wikis including Commons (compatibly) with the same descriptions and everything intact from the original.  I guess this is my silly way of protesting the lack of cohesiveness of the current Wiki image system. Leepaxton (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic properties
Lee, thanks again for all your work on the photos. Your thorough descriptions on the image pages are great. I think many of them could be turned into full fledged articles if you had a few references to add to them. I think they all would pass notability concerns since we can point to them as landmarks. Also, I wanted to bring your attention to one discrepancy (really the only one I found) between the info you have about the Heinz Lofts, and what was listed in the PHLF plaque booklet (page 26). You have Frederick J. Osterling listed as the architect, while the PHLF lists the architects for the five buildings (1913-27) as H. J. Heinz Company, R. M. Trimble, and Albert Kahn. Any insight into this discrepancy? CrazyPaco (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it, and I hope to do more soon.  As for the Heinz Lofts, well, I had seen them listed as H. J. Heinz Company, though I've never heard the other two names that you mentioned, but I saw the Wikipedia page on Osterling some months ago, and it said that he had something to do with "Heinz Company Factories, now Heinz Lofts (300 Heinz Street), 1889".  I put a "citation needed" beside it, because I hadn't seen that anywhere before, but it does look like something Osterling could have been involved with, and that got me thinking.  The Westinghouse Air Break General Office is listed as Osterling as well as Janssen & Cocken (Janssen, as in Benno Janssen).  It seems that Osterling may have designed it, and later Janssen & Cocken may have done renovations or additions to it.  Osterling was known to do additions and renovations also (his planned renovation of H. H. Richardson's Allegheny County Courthouse and Jail caused somewhat of a scandal at the time).   I thought, well, maybe Osterling had done something for the Heinz Company too (perhaps another part of the factory or something?), and the material that I previously read simply listed it as "H. J. Heinz Company".  Heck, I don't know, but the PHLF list may very well be right about those two other names (R. M. Trimble, and Albert Kahn), but this is the first I've heard of those guys.  It's good that you spotted that, but I still wonder if Osterling was ever involved with the Heinz Lofts or something else for Heinz?  I have no idea where the "1889" came from.  The date on the PHLF list has them as "1913-27".  The Heinz Lofts website says, "constructed between 1912 and 1931".  So, the PHLF is most likely correct, and I should go ahead and edit the image to list the correct information.  Good eye for spotting that. Leepaxton (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the only one of your photos that I notice where there was a significant discrepancy in the info, so kudos to you and your information. BTW, the info on your photos was very useful in double checking things. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I try to get the information on the photos as accurate as possible. I put some more up today, and hope to get some more soon. Leepaxton (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Lee, I created a new List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Allegheny County. The PA state markers are different than NRHP or PHLF's in that they often refer to people, places, events, etc. that are long gone. Since it is a copyright violation to take photos in which the subject is the actual plaque (the plaque and its text are copyrighted), the images in the table are often just contextual like the markers themselves. However, there are some entries that could use photos, and if you are out and about photographing, you might want to keep that in mind, as well as the subtleties of copyright law. The plaques can be in the picture (as an extraneous part like here), but the cannot be the main subject of the photo (like here (this photo is actually a © violation, tagged wrong & shouldn't be at commons). The plaques fall under the same category as sculptures (see Freedom of panorama and Template:Non-free 3D art). In any case, thought you'd like to know about the new list. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I added some pictures to that list, and I know where some other markers are located. That's a good idea about taking a picture of a sign in the background with other things, so then you have the site and the sign in the photo without violating the historical marker's copyright.  Nevertheless, why are signs posted in public places by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (a governmental agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) not considered public domain?  That doesn't really make sense, in my opinion.  Oh well, anyway, I'll see what I can do when I'm out getting pictures. Leepaxton (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, the fact that the markers are copyrighted is stupid, and I'm not so concerned about that as I am about the wikipedia copyright police coming by and yanking every photo with a sign in it in the future. With that in mind, it might be a good idea to get a photo with and without the sign while you are out! I would still try to make the sign only incidental for any photo uploaded for Wikipedia. For instance, I think the Allegheny Arsenal and Bower Hill photos may be bordering on problematic because they are so prominent and readable...and I can see certain copyright enthusiasts trying to get them removed. I'm not one of them, but I've dealt with some of them. Just a heads up.


 * BTW, I've completed the PA historical marker tables for the entire Pittsburgh metro area: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Of course, there are probably better images that can be used than some of the ones I've initially included, but the tables are about as complete as I could get them from here. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the images of Allegheny Arsenal and Bower Hill, if someone tried to have them removed I would try to argue that the markers in the images are just there to indicate location of these historic places and nothing more. There is more in the background than just the signs, and I quote the markers and attribute them to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, so would that not be a reasonable type of citation?  I would hope so, or else what good are the markers for educational purposes?  I realize that markers don't always indicate an exact location, but they are usually approximates based on the best available information (which I think is the case with the Bower Hill site, according to the guy that I spoke with from Neville's Woodville who also showed me to Old St.Luke's Episcopal Church along the way).  In the Allegheny Arsenal picture, the old powder magazine is visible (it's the stone building on the right side of the image).  The day that I got that picture, I should have walked over and got a closer picture of the powder magazine itself, but I thought the image with the sign in it would help better explain the image.  I had gotten a number of images that day, and had more to get too.  Also, I had no idea that some people consider these historical markers to be copyrighted (are the ones in the historical marker article in violation of copyright laws?).  Well, if I had known there might be any possible issues with these images, I would've gotten different pictures.  It kinda sucks to have to go back to sites you've already gone to for better photographs, but I will do that when I can because I want to get the best possible pictures for these entries.  I suppose my picture of the McKees Rocks Mound historical marker is in violation of that sign's copyright, but there is nothing to see at that location except a large wooded hillside (and that whole hill is not the mound), so that is why I chose to use the picture of The Rocks of McKees Rocks for the entry on the List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Allegheny County.  The Mound was mostly excavated years ago, but it was somewhere up on that hill and not too far from those rocks according to this old depiction (see the mound on the upper left side of that image, and then it is enlarged in the upper right side corner to show more detail).  So, I think the picture of the rocks makes sense to use for that entry.  There was a scandal in McKees Rocks not that long ago about this location, because the company that operates very close to this site was trying to dig into the former burial ground and the rocks that give McKees Rocks its name! link  Some people were not too happy about that, as one might guess, and there are probably more remains of Native Americans up there somewhere too.  In some ways, it would be like someone trying to destroy the Meadowcroft Rockshelter rather than preserving it as an important historical and archaeological location (which it is). Leepaxton (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lee, someone has to force the issue first. I'd put retaking the photos with a prominent sign as the very lowest priority. If I were you, I wouldn't go out of my way to take new pictures unless I was in the area already. I just brought this up as a caution for new pictures that you might take. The more signs, the more it may cause a problem or draw attention.


 * As far as the copyright, it is actually the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission that considers both the sign and the sign's text to be copyrighted, and it says so on their website (see the photo captions). Now, above and beyond that, the plaques themselves could be considered 3-D art and fall under the same as sculptures per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2). In addition, Wikipedia frowns upon non-free images in lists (see WP:NFLISTS). I imagine people could pursue OTRS tickets for the images of the signs, but it would be up to the PHMC to release them.


 * I agree that the Rocks of McKees Rocks is probably the best photo to use. However, that historical image you linked from the ExplorePaHistory site may actually have an expired copyright if you can track down when it was originally published. The mound inset could be cropped and it might be even better since it particularly focuses on the mound. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work
Nice work with all the photos! They really complement the Pittsburgh-related articles. All is One (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. Leepaxton (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Split Pittsburgh landmarks article
Lee, just wanted you to know I split the Pittsburgh Landmarks article into List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations and List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks. I went ahead and did this after discussion on the Historic Sites Wikiproject page about how to best integrate the landmarks into their infobox designation. That infobox will be needed to for articles on the landmarks which aren't listed on the NRHP. As some properties have received both City and PHLF designations, that infobox should be able to reflect that. In any case, it obviously doesn't have to be permanent, but if you have any suggestions or concerns let me know.

Separately, I also split out the City designations into their four categories (4 separate tables): Districts, Objects, Sites, and Structures. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to complete the List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations first and get as many from the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks along the way. Then, I'll try to focus on the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks. Leepaxton (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Great job!
Lee, great job on the Garden Theater article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I should let you know since you are into Pittsburgh history, if you come across any good dates for the Pittsburgh Portal "On this day in Pittsburgh history..." feature, they can be added here. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man, I think it would be cool to see that old porno theater turned into a nice performance venue or something like that. It's a classic Art Deco theater from 1915, for goodness sakes!  I think it could be a good place, though it might be a little strange sitting in seats where horny dudes in trench coats used to watch porn for all those years, but once they scrub it up a bit it might not be so greasy anymore.  Heck, I think it could be a cool place.  And, once the funky musical grooves started flowing in there, it would be all right.  It could be the dawn of a new beginning for the Central Northside, a cool and funky revival! Leepaxton (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New historic infobox
Hey Lee, just an update for you on the historic article stuff. I created a new infobox template (PAhistoric infobox) which is modeled after the NRHP ones. This infobox is intended for state or local historic sites and landmarks that are not listed on the national registry, but are designated as historic by Pennsylvania and/or regional or local authorities and organizations. Like the NRHP ones, it will place color-coded banners at the top of the infobox for PA Historical Markers, City of Pittsburgh designations, and PHLF designations. I placed an example of it in your Garden Theater article (you can revert it if you want). The Allegheny Arsenal article is another example of its use. The new infobox should help standardize how all the Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh historic site and landmark articles are presented. I just got tired of waiting for the Historic Sites Wikiproject and I didn't want to deal any further with the unreasonably narrow definitions of how one of their project members wanted to define "historic site" and attempt to keep out the PA markers designation... plus, I just like the NRHP infoboxes better with the historic designation banners at the top of the infobox that draws attention to the subject's historic status. Anyway, I wanted to let you know because of your involvement with all the Pittsburgh landmarks in wikipedia. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, it looks fine to me. It kinda fancies things up a bit too, though there are a lot of different distinctions out there.  It's good to specify though.  The Allegheny County Courthouse is probably on every list that's out there, but I don't think it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site (yet).  Haha, give it time. Leepaxton (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm hoping the NRHP infobox will add an option to alter text color values so that the color schemes can stay consistent with whichever infobox is being used. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I think most NRHP infoboxes use their standard color settings, and usually if a site is on the NRHP it seems to "trump" the local designations and whatnot.  Nevertheless, I sometimes think the local designations are just as interesting (if not, at times, even more interesting) than the NR sites.  But, that's just my opinion.  Maybe some of the local sites will eventually end up on the NR.  I think some of them are deserving of it.  Anyhow, it would be nice if there was a way to easily put all the templates in the infoboxes and coordinate color schemes that could look better with all the different infobox template designations that are out there.  I like the PAhistoric infobox you came up with, it goes well with the city of Pittsburgh's colors, and I think the standard light blue of the NRHP templates that could be placed above (if ever necessary) wouldn't look bad with those colors either. Leepaxton (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic Architecture
Lee,

You commented about Fantastic Architecture on its talk page. Could you please help everyone out there as you seem knowledgable? Is it different from Novelty Architecture? Is the article that applies it's the same as Novelty completely off-base? Please comment further on the talk page of that article (Talk:Fantastic architecture) D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A fantasy could be considered a novelty, or visa versa, but their definitions are not necessarily exactly the same. For example, the word "novelty" denotes "something new and unusual; an innovation", whereas a fantasy doesn't have to be based on something new or modern.  For example, Frederick C. Sauer's Sauer Buildings Historic District is based along somewhat medieval "castle-esque" styles.  Fantasy denotes something that derives from "creative imagination; unrestrained fancy" and/or "fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements".  A fantasy could be based on anything, new or old, but a novelty usually denotes something new, relatively modern and unusual.  The similarity between fantastic architecture and novelty architecture is that they are generally considered to be "unusual".  They could be roadside attractions, or not, and/or they could serve a legitimate function other than just ornamental.  An architect who takes their fantasy-inspired work seriously may prefer using the term "fantastic architecture" over "novelty architecture", perhaps because one definition of novelty denotes "small, cheap, new, ornament, or trinket".  These things relating to the word "novelty" may imply something that is used to catch the eye for advertising purposes along a roadside or for a laugh.  However, some fantasy-inspired structures can be functional and legitimately sound examples of architecture, as is also the case with some examples of novelty architecture too. Leepaxton (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Gosh, thanks, I almost don't know what to say, but I'll try to make this worth your while. You've done so much for the Pittsburgh articles too.  Heck, is there an award I can give you?  If there's an award that you don't have for Pittsburgh related articles, you should have it at the very least for your help in making the much improved PHLF list possible.  I don't think I could've been able to do so much without your help on that list.  There's still a lot of photographs to take, so I'll continue to try and get as many as I can whenever I'm able.


 * Oh, here's a true story for you: In Crafton, Pennsylvania, on October 30, 2010, I was questioned by police at two different locations for taking pictures of public buildings from public sidewalks.  That had never happened before, and I still find it somewhat peculiar.  The first time occurred in front of the Episcopal Church of the Nativity, a policeman in an unmarked SUV questioned me for taking pictures of the church, so I told him I was taking pictures of historic buildings, many of which are on the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks.  He was nice enough about it, though he did give me a look, and said that he goes to that church.  I said, "Well, it's a nice old church."  I told him I had taken pictures of hundreds of buildings in Allegheny County, many of them churches, and that he could see them on Wikipedia if he'd like to check them out.  He said, "That's fine, no problem.  This isn't really official business, but we just like to ask people some questions if we see them taking pictures of places."  He then ended the conversation with, "be good."  I laughed and said, "Of course."  That was odd enough, but then after I got a picture of historic Creighton Avenue, I walked over to get a picture of Crafton Elementary School (which isn't on the PHLF list, but it was built in 1913, and it caught my eye because of its seemingly Jacobean Revival architectural style with relief sculptures facing Crafton Boulevard, and not only that, but there were signs out front that said "save our school", so this nice old building's future might be in peril).  While taking a picture of this 97-year-old school building on a Saturday when school was not in session and there was nobody around, a police car pulled up to me.  This guy was younger than the last guy, and I explained to him what I was doing, and even showed him some of the pictures I took of the Creighton Avenue historical marker that says, "Platted in 1895".  Well, he was understanding and polite about it, and he also said, "We just like to ask people some questions if we see them out taking pictures."  I said, "No problem, I understand, there are all kinds of crazies out nowadays and whatnot."  He drove off, and as I walked away I began thinking that it was an even more peculiar day than before.  This had never happened to me before when out taking pictures.  I've had to deal with drunks, bums, and all sorts, but until October 30, 2010, I had never previously been questioned by the police for legally taking pictures in public places, and this happened twice in one day in the same community.  I kinda wanted to stop and give things a rest for the day, but instead I went to photograph the West End United Methodist Church in Elliott without any hassles or troubles (and it's a neat church that was built in 1887, architects Longfellow, Alden & Harlow, and it seems to display a Richardsonian Romanesque architectural style).  After that, I got a picture of the Corliss Tunnel, and then decided to call it a day.  Then I got back home and realized that I missed the George Leber House in Crafton, so I went back there the next day, found it and photographed it (here).  I was wondering if the Crafton police would see me taking pictures in public and try to talk to me again, so I went and got a better image of St. Philip Roman Catholic Church to replace the previous image I took of it while it was still undergoing renovation on July 31, 2010.  Well, I was not questioned again, though a police car did drive nearby as I was leaving.  Had it been a few moments earlier, I may have gotten questioned a third time.  Needless to say, I'm kinda glad there aren't anymore sites on the PHLF list in Crafton that need to be photographed.  Well, anyway, I hope you've at least somewhat enjoyed hearing the continuing saga of "a Wikipedian freelance Pittsburgh area architectural history photographer" :-).  I'm still gonna keep on trying to contribute Pittsburgh area content on Wikipedia as much as reasonably possible.  I want to thank you again for awarding me that barnstar, and I also want to thank you for your continued participation in helping to improve Pittsburgh related articles on Wikipedia.  Take care, and I'll look forward to seeing you around. Leepaxton (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess they are worried people are casing different places in Crafton, but that is a somewhat disturbing story, but at least they didn't make you stop shooting which they wouldn't have had any right to do. In any case, the barnstar is well deserved. You put a lot of effort into tracking down these properties, capturing and uploading the photos, and writing up their captions for these articles, and as this is really the only illustrated resource on these historic properties that I know of, so I think it is pretty valuable. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:00, 14 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  22:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for writing. I signed the list, and would like to continue trying to help improve Wikipedia articles relating to Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh area.  Thank you for your participation in these endeavors also. Leepaxton (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

NRHP and Allegheny County, Pittsburgh lists
I noticed that you completed the photos at both the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County NRHP lists in August and September. Congratulations! That is a big achievement! You obviously deserve all those photographic barnstars above. If you complete other NRHP lists please include them on the list WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/full_illus_list, so that we can keep track of what needs to be done :-) 208 listings in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County is the 4th largest NRHP list completed to date. Thanks.  Smallbones (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Leepaxton (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Troy Hill Incline
I recently created a page for the Troy Hill Incline, and I saw that you took a picture of the summit station. Could I use your photo for the page? Mvincec (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just added the image to the article. Leepaxton (talk) 22:26, 13 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) 15:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

184 38th Street
If you're still taking pictures of historical locations in Pittsburgh, here's a good one: 184 38th Street. Here's an image from the county's assessment website.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is just that little part on the back the "log" portion of the house, or is the whole place at that address (according to the tax records here) part of the "log house"? Because, it kinda looks like clapboard to my eyes, but maybe I'm wrong (perhaps underneath that it could be a log house)?  Well, it looks like a funky old place anyway, so the next time I'm in Lawrenceville, I'll try to swing by and get a picture of it if I can.  Thanks for the information. Leepaxton (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, and yes, it's the entire thing. From what I can tell, the logs are hewn to be flat, so yeah, it doesn't looks like a typical log cabin.  Also, it's a duplex, so there are two front doors.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I added a picture of the place to the article (image here). Some other pictures I took of 184 38th Street can be seen at my flickr gallery (here), and these include the following:  Front View, Other Side View, Side View, Back View, as well as an image of the "City of Pittsburgh Building Permit" displayed in the window here.  Hopefully this helps, and if you think any of those other images on flickr would also help the Wikipedia article, just say which one or ones and I can upload them for use on Wikipedia.  It's a real shame how some folks allow these neat old places to get dilapidated.  Last week, I heard about an old church in the Esplen neighborhood of Pittsburgh whose roof had caved in after the rain came through.  I went down to get some pictures of it on May 15, 2011.  Well, I guess I got there too late because, as one can see from my pictures here and here, there wasn't much left of it.  So, after seeing that unfortunate scene, you wrote to me about taking pictures of 184 38th Street, so I thought I should try and get some picture of it, and it also got me thinking about another place too.  Before going over to Lawrenceville to get those pictures yesterday, I went down to the old train station in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.  This old train station is pretty darn cool and is definitely in need of renovation.  I took a picture of it for Wikipedia back on June 7, 2009, because it is on the National Register of Historic Places (and that image can be seen here).  That place was built in 1895 by the well-known architects Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge, and they were basically the successor firm of the prominent Henry Hobson Richardson.  I mean, I think that train station could be described as being Richardsonian Romanesque in architectural style, and how many train stations like that are around?  I think it's a disgrace the way it has just sat there for so long collecting dust, when it could be fixed up and turned into a real asset to the borough of Coraopolis.  So, I decided to make two videos about the old train station yesterday and put them on YouTube, and those can be seen here and here.  Since you did a pretty good job of helping put together that Wikipedia page for 184 38th Street, perhaps you could also help improve the Wikipedia page for the Coraopolis Railroad Station too.  Anyhow, thanks again for the information and your interest in neat old places. Leepaxton (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great pictures! Would you be opposed to uploading all of the photos of this log house?  I fully expect that this building will be demolished shortly and we can preserve its history by placing these photos on Wikipedia.  Also, I gave you co-author credit on the DYK, since I was so pumped by the picture you uploaded.  --GrapedApe (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind adding the other images to the article, but I was told by some guy on here before that we shouldn't just load up the articles with a bunch of pictures in galleries unless they are relevant (though I think they are, though there might be other views on that). I then argued a little bit with the guy that sometimes images in galleries are definitely relevant, and he seemed to suggest that it is usually better to find a way to work the images into the context and/or structure of the article itself rather than just putting them in galleries.  I like galleries, but I guess some people do not prefer them and would rather see the images placed into the structure of the articles themselves.  If that is the case, then which of those images do you think would be most relevant for use in the structure of the article?  I mean, how many do you think should be properly placed amongst the text that is there without looking too bloated?  One or two more?  And, if so, then which ones?  So, there's that, and the fact that occasionally I have seen some of my images on Wikipedia either tampered with erroneously and/or used in other places on the internet without proper observance of the free licenses or attribution.  I even address how these things should be displayed in the opening statements of my gallery (here), but some frickin' people don't care about that.  I find this to be quite unfortunate, and this plus being stopped by cops twice on the same day just for taking pictures of old buildings in Crafton, Pennsylvania (Crapton, as I sometimes call it now), on October 30, 2010, well, it has kinda soured my participation on Wikipedia a little bit.  But, I don't want to give up, that's for sure.  I think that Wikipedia is important, because I think that getting good information out to everyone is a damn good thing to do and be involved with, but one also has got to make sure that people aren't shitting things up too much.  It can be a bit irksome sometimes, as I'm sure you may know.  I mean, there are some good people out there, and there are some real motherfuckers out there too.  So, one really has to be on their toes. Leepaxton (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ideally, I'd like all of them uploaded, but these are my top 4 favorites in descending order:1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th--GrapedApe (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I added this image and this image to the article by putting them in a gallery (maybe they can be worked into the text of the article at some point). Also, I just checked back through what was said on the "Template talk:Did you know" page history, and saw where you commented by reiterating the quote from Brian O'Neill of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which says, "[I]f there's another [log house] that has endured within the streetscape of an American city as big as Pittsburgh, nobody here has heard of it yet."  Well, that seems to answer my question as to what was meant by "major American city", in this case it seems to mean (as I had thought) a city with a population over 300,000 people (as Pittsburgh's population is listed at 305,704 on this list).  Nevertheless, as one guy had commented on there, these types of statements are clearly not definite, as the words "[I]f" and "nobody here has heard of it yet" indicate.  Which re-emphasizes my points on there that, "we do not know for sure", "there might be another one out there somewhere that hasn't been discussed or brought to the public's attention", and "think it's better to be honest about something rather than express certainty about a topic where certainty cannot (or cannot yet) be fully ascertained."  That is why the article has the cited statement, "It may be the oldest log house in any major American city that continues to be used as a residence."  Well, my concern with that statement is as follows:  The words "continues to be used as a residence" were previously "continued to be used as a residence", and the cited source says, "continued as a residence into the 21st century..."  That seems to indicate past tense, which makes me wonder if 184 38th Street is currently being lived in or used as a residence by anybody or not?  I was there, and I am not sure.  Someone may or may not live there right now, I mean, the place did look rough.  But, if no one is actually living there right now, then the second sentence of the article should be changed back to when it said, "It may be the oldest log house in any major American city that continued to be used as a residence", or perhaps it should say, "It may be the oldest log house in any major American city that continued to be used as a residence into the 21st century."  The odd qualifiers and uncertainty about the place may prevent it from achieving register or landmark status, though the place does have an interesting history which is discussed in the article.  Since it is in the City of Pittsburgh, perhaps it could qualify for inclusion on the List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations.  These are individual structures that are reviewed and recommended to Pittsburgh City Council, which makes the final decision, by the city's Historic Review Commission and the City Planning Commission.  That could be one way to save it, because I've heard it said that the structures on that list cannot be torn down unless approved by Pittsburgh City Council.  The Malta Temple building located at 100 West North Avenue in the Central Northside neighborhood of Pittsburgh (pictured here), was saved from demolition by a 5 to 2 decision from the Pittsburgh Planning Commission in 2008.  Of course, the Pittsburgh Planning Commission can also vote things on the list to be torn down and removed too, for example, I've heard that the old Saint Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church located at 1326 East Ohio Street in the Troy Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh (pictured here), may soon be torn down to make way for road expansion.  I must admit that expanding Route 28 would be a good thing in that area, though I wish there was something that could be done to either save or move that old church.  It will probably be gone before too long though.  Also, the Civic Arena may be denied historic status by the City Planning Commission and City Council, if it hasn't been fully denied that already, because it seems that the city is likely moving towards having that place torn down.  Nevertheless, there may still be some hope left for saving 184 38th Street, that is if it can be brought to the attention of the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission, the City Planning Commission and City Council to be voted on (if it hasn't been brought to their attention already).  So, if you can figure out a way to contact them, then maybe that could be a good place to start. Leepaxton (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I think that this building is not going to be around for very long. I think that we did a great service by preserving information on this building for the future.  One more thing: would you please upload the rear view?  I think it gives a very good sense of the structure, its dilapidated state, and the add-on in the back.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I took a look at expanding the Coraopolis Railroad Station article, but there really aren't a lot of sources available--I checked Historic American Buildings Survey, the Library of Congress, and Google news archive, but there's not a lot out there. Until the the NPS's NRIS search gets updated to include the original documentation, there's not a lot out there.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the image of the back of 184 38th Street and put it in the gallery. The picture of the other side (this image) shows that the house tapers off a little bit in the back on the portion closest to Butler Street.  It seems that not as much was added on to that side.  It's not as easy to get a picture of that side though, because there's a wooden fence and a house next door.  So, that is why that picture is not as good as the others.  I see in the article where it lists the house as having two stories.  In this picture one can see that there's a third story window in the attic, though that might not qualify as a full story (since there's probably only room to stand in the middle up there because the roof cuts into the attic, and that doesn't usually count as a full story in most people's view).  Anyhow, the article does look better.
 * As for the Coraopolis Railroad Station article, I see that you changed the main picture to an image of the back of the station. One can see the side that needs the most work in that image, as well as the portion of the roof that needs fixed as soon as possible.  I think the front view of the station is more picturesque because one can catch a better glimpse of that interesting tower facing the railroad tracks.  Though, the sun seems more prominent on that side, so it's usually better to get pictures of the front in the morning.  I wrote to the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation (PHLF) about getting the station on the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks.  They sent me a PDF of their successful 1978 submission to the National Park Service that got the station added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1979, along with a form that I filled out to the best of my ability and returned to them in an attempt to get the station added to the PHLF's list of historic landmarks.  I was asked to send them 5 pictures of the exterior of the building, as well as 2 images of the interior.  I sent them six images of the exterior, but I do not have access to the interior, so I forwarded the message along to the leader of the Coraopolis Community Development Foundation, the non-profit group that owns the station, and asked if they could contribute two relatively recent images of the station's interior.  I would like to get the station added to the PHLF's list of historic landmarks, as well as get a nice historic marker and/or plaque for the building too.  Most importantly, I'm trying to raise awareness about the station in order to promote local interest and involvement in trying to get it fixed up and turned into an asset to the community.  If you think it could help you improve the train station article, I can send you the PDF they sent me of the information that got it listed on the National Register in 1979 (though there really isn't a lot of information there, it still might be helpful).  Also, if you'd like, I can send you a copy of the word document that I filled out (to the best of my ability) and sent to the PHLF on May 27, 2011, in an attempt to get the station added to the PHLF's list of historic landmarks.  If you think these two files can help you improve the article, just tell me what email address you want me to send them to and I will do that as soon as I can.  Here are the six images I sent the PHLF:  One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six.  If you think any of those flickr images would help the Wikipedia article, just say which one or ones and I can upload them for use on Wikipedia.  Thanks again for your help on Wikipedia, as well as your interest in helping get the word out about the need for preservation of neat old historic buildings. Leepaxton (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you email me that PDF, I'll see what I can do about that article.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I just sent you the PDF. Hopefully you get it all right, and hopefully there's some information in there that can help you improve the Coraopolis Railroad Station article. Leepaxton (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Check it out: Coraopolis Railroad Station. I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out, considering the limited sources available.  Listen:  let me know if you will be in Washington County taking pictures anytime soon.  There are some great locations that you might be interested in visiting.  (If you do, I'd be glad to work up some articles for you in exchange for getting pictures.)--GrapedApe (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article is better now. Thanks for your help.  I really like the picture of the CSX engine going by the front of the old station.  It's nice.  As for taking pictures in Washington County, Pennsylvania, well, there is an old crematorium not far from downtown Washington that I forgot to get the last time I was there taking pictures.  A better article could probably be made for that place, since it may have been the first of its kind in the United States.  Also, I would like to get back to the Meadowcroft Rockshelter sometime when it is actually open so that I can take the tour.  I think there's an old covered bridge up the hill not far from there that could be photographed too.  I would rather stick to taking pictures in Allegheny County though, honestly, especially after the last time I went on some wild goose chases out in the sticks of Washington County getting pictures of several different covered bridges.  Some of the roads out in the sticks are messed up.   But, I don't have a problem with getting some images around Washington or places nearer to civilization.  So, if you can think of a few places in the northern part of Washington County that aren't too far from Allegheny County and wouldn't be too tough to find, then I can try and get some images of those when I can.
 * I took a picture of an old building in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, on May 25, 2011, which was demolished as of June 2, 2011, and this is what it looked like. It didn't really look like a bad building.  I liked the keystones above the windows.  Well, they tore that whole block out, and I heard they are going to put a CVS Pharmacy (or something like that) there.  It's just an empty lot right now. Leepaxton (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * . Very glad that you were able to get those pictures before demolition started...--GrapedApe (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty unfortunate, but I'm really not too surprised either. There were a couple of other articles relating to historic building issues in the local papers recently, for example:  this one dated July 12th from the Post-Gazette about a neat looking Victorian house in Carrick that was recently granted historic status by Pittsburgh City Council, and this one from the Tribune-Review dated July 11th entitled "Historic Status Debates Can Often Divide Owners, Neighbors".  I should probably try to get a picture of that house in Carrick, especially if it has been added to the List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations. Leepaxton (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you also uploaded the log cabin photos at Flickr, I added short notes in the image description to prove that you are the uploader of the images at Flickr. Otherwise, someone who stumbles onto those Flickr images with be able to tag them with db-copyvio and have them deleted (because the licenses conflict). You might want to do the same for any of your other images that were also uploaded at Flickr.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out Wigman House. A pretty decent article, I think.  It could use a few good photos, of course....--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I went to Carrick today and got a picture of 1425 Brownsville Road. I added the image to the article as well as the List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations.  I also got a picture of Veronica's Veil Community Arts Center for the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks.  It was hot and my camera's battery was running low, so I didn't get photos of the other places for the PHLF list that are also located in the South Side Slopes, but I will try to get those another time.  Hey, since you are good at making articles, how about making one for the Neill Log House (image here)?  There are some quotes about it from different books that are cited in a piece that I put together on May 4, 2010, entitled "Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Architecture Before 1800".  I hope that helps. Leepaxton (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Behold: Neill Log House. (Not my best, but there's room for improvement)...--GrapedApe (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice, thank you. I think that the Neill Log House is a somewhat underappreciated historic landmark in the city of Pittsburgh.  I feel similarly about the John Woods House (image here), which was built in 1792 for John Woods (1761-1816), even though it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.   It is said that composer Stephen Foster was friends with the Woods family, and that he composed the song "Nelly Bly" in the house.  I've heard that some folks are trying to fix the place up and do something with it though, and I think that would be a good thing.  Well, in other news, I went up to the South Side Slopes again last Saturday and got the three remaining images in that neighborhood for the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks.  Oddly enough, I was watching a movie last night on IndiePlex entitled Dominick and Eugene, and there's a part in that film where the character Dominick runs past the old brick rowhouses on Shelly Street in the Slopes.  I had to do a double take when I saw that, because I had just been to that place for the first time three days before.  Anyhow, most of that movie was filmed in the South Side Flats neighborhood in Bedford Square by Club Cafe and the South Side Market Building, but there are some interesting scenes up on those really steep hills of the South Side Slopes too. Leepaxton (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 184 38th Street
Hello! Your submission of 184 38th Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 23 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 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I have more than 10 edits per month or not lately when it comes to Pittsburgh related articles, so I listed myself in the "Semi-active" section at WikiProject Pittsburgh/Members. Leepaxton (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File moved to Commons
I hope this is ok. Just letting you know. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To you (and everyone else): Please leave my pictures alone if you aren't going to transfer them correctly with the coordinate data intact, all the words from the originals displayed properly, and, as I say in my gallery:  "When moving my images to Commons, please follow the style as listed in this image." Leepaxton (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When I copy any of your images over, I leave the original Wikipedia file where it is. Seems to satisfy everyone--GrapedApe (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's at least better, because then the information from the original can be copied over to the other if the coordinates (or something else) doesn't transfer 100% properly. I don't like the way Commons doesn't always transfer the full name of the place, community, city or town, for example, I think that the town and state should always be listed together ("Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", or in the case of this image "Scott Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania" instead of just "Scott Township").  With that last image that Panyd moved though, the coordinate data was not transferred over and they deleted the original image that contained the original coordinate data.  Which means, the coordinate data had to be added back on manually.  I remember that on the original image I used Google Earth to try and get the coordinates to land directly on that Pennsylvania Historical Marker when viewing it on street view, well now they are close but not directly on it.  Oh well, not a big deal, but something that still kinda peeves me a little.  I don't understand why that stupid picture had to be moved to Commons anyway, it is only on two Wikipedia pages that relate only to the English language and local Pennsylvania articles thus far (The List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Allegheny County and my gallery of images).  It's not likely that someone in Germany or East Fartestonia or Fudge Packerstan is going to give a crap about that image.  It's a stupid place on a stupid hill that doesn't even have anything historical on it except there's a modern historical marker that says what took place there during the Whiskey Rebellion over 200 years ago.  It's a freakin' modern suburb now, and I think there's some sort of health care facility or modern church or something up there.  Other than that sign, it was rather uninteresting.  Anyhow, that's my view of it. Leepaxton (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled autopatrolled on your account. This does not affect your editing; rather, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please take note of the following points:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority.
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal.
 * You can display the top icon and/or the  userbox on your user page.
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it.
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask me. Otherwise, happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, it has become a bit of a compulsive obsession of mine lately to make pages relating to local Pittsburgh historic sites. I made sure that all the sites on the National Register of Historic Places for Pittsburgh and Allegheny County had pages, and then I completed pages for the List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations.  Now I am working on pages for the List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks.  I figure that will be a long-term project.  First, I'd like to make pages for all the sites that have images, as well as continue to go out and take photographs of sites for that list.  Like I said, that list is a long-term project that may take years.  Heck, it has already taken two years up to this point.  I figure it may take a few more years at least, or more, but maybe time will tell.  Anyhow, I enjoy doing this to some degree or I wouldn't do it, so I will try and keep at it when I can.  Thanks again for awarding me a barnstar.  I appreciate it. Leepaxton (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lee I created Template:Location map Pittsburgh central for you also see Heinz Lofts. You may use this for more central articles. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks like a better map than the other one. Leepaxton (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A sopapilla for you!

 * No, stuffed beef sopapillas aren't only found in Newark, Ohio. Stuffed sopapillas can be found at some places in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas (and maybe some other places too).  They aren't really that common though, but they are out there and there are some people who know about them as far as Southwestern and Tex-Mex cuisine is concerned.  Nevertheless, I am surprised they are not more well-known and popular across the whole country.  Those things are freakin' good, and probably terrible for a person to eat too much (since they are deep fried).  But, they seem to have that quality that could make them a big hit across the United States (they taste good and aren't too healthy), so I am surprised they haven't gone mainstream and become a huge hit.  I figure they could make some company millions of dollars, and make surgeons even richer through more triple bypass surgeries. Leepaxton (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:MellonParkFountain.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MellonParkFountain.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) 13:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll go to the talk page and put in my two cents. Leepaxton (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

 * OK, I took the survey. Leepaxton (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Folkmusic
Template:Folkmusic, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Folkmusic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Template:Folkmusic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added my comments on the talk page. Leepaxton (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, so now it's called Template:User folk, roots & traditional music if anyone wants to use it. It's more specific than Template:User folk music since roots and traditional music are not mentioned there (though they are all connected, but are not all the same in everyone's mind). If anything, this is more specific than just the general "folk music" label. Leepaxton (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wigman House
If you're ever in the area near the Wigman House, it might be interesting to get a photo of the funeral home that was trying to purchase the property to turn it into a parking lot. Just a thought, if you're ever back in that area. Cheers!--GrapedApe (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello GrapedApe, that funeral home really isn't much to see as far as architecture is concerned. It's a relatively common type of Colonial Revival style house that probably dates back to the late 1800s or early 1900s that has been converted into a funeral home, so there's nothing really that interesting about it from an architectural standpoint.  Such houses are quite common in the Pittsburgh area (and throughout other parts of the country).  The funeral home can be seen on Google street view.  Perhaps you think it could help to compare the Wigman House (which is somewhat architecturally interesting due to the fact that it is supposedly the last of the old American Queen Anne style houses in the Carrick neighborhood of Pittsburgh) with the less architecturally interesting funeral home across the street whose owners wanted to make a parking lot out of it (until they changed their minds after the city council got involved and decided to accept the historic status designation)?  I'm not sure what that would add to the article, other than some slight journalistic context and an interesting juxtaposition, but it could also bring up the fact that there really isn't much parking for a funeral home to operate more effectively in that area (along that steep hill of The Blvd), and thus rehash the ongoing dilemma of function versus fashion when it comes to old sites meeting current demands and/or needs.  Of course I think it's a nice old house and hope that it stays where it is, but I can also understand how the owners of the funeral home would want some off-street parking located near their funeral home.  That road beside it, The Blvd, is quite steep and one would probably want a good parking brake if they were parking there to attend a funeral (in order to ensure that their car didn't roll onto Brownsville Road and cause the need for yet another funeral).  I remember parking along that steep hill to take the picture of the Wigman House, and I remember thinking, "I hope my parking brake works".  Because of that, I also remember thinking, "I wouldn't want to attend a funeral there" (not that I like attending funerals anyway).  A picture might not be able to tell that story, but Google street view probably can help illustrate that point more effectively.  In any case, I really don't think this information would help promote the preservation of the structure, but could rather present a view that may be used to support another opinion instead.  Still, another opinion could be that the funeral home (located directly across from the South Side Cemetery) should consider moving to another location with room for a parking lot of its own.  That's probably not a bad idea, though finding a flat lot in that area isn't always easy to do, it would probably be better for them to find another place with enough off-street parking to meet their needs. Leepaxton (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sounds like it's not worth making a special trip there to get the photo. Interesting point though, that there's really no parking for mourners.  None of the articles mentioned that there is an actual need for parking there.  They just made the funeral home seem like a parasite.   (Sorry for the delayed response--I must've missed your response in my watchlist).--GrapedApe (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you been past 184 38th Street lately? What a shame.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Trane userbox
Hey diggin' dude,

I would like to "borrow" your userbox.

But I'm wondering about the image -- Tyner and Baby Trane? Two of your Favourite Things perhaps?

I will take a giant step and guess that there is nothing more on target in Commons?

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Varlaam, thanks for writing. Sure, you can use that userbox if you love the Trane and The Real McCoy.  I took that picture at the Newport Jazz Festival in 2005, and it was a great time.  The year before that, at the 50th Anniversary of the Newport Jazz Festival, I got this picture of The Real McCoy with Baby Trane, Xtian McBride, Michael Breck-Breck, and Roy "Higgidy" Haynes.  That moment was so powerfully moving, I almost thought I was going to shit my pants and die.  It was kinda like an altered state of consciousness, my man.  I felt like I was trippin' out on psilocybe cubensis - it seemed as if the Baby Trane was turnin' into the actual Trane for a moment and time and space seemed like an illusion except for the power of the musical grooves.  It was kinda surreal and transcendent.  On April 4, 2009, I had the pleasure of meeting Baby Trane in person here in Pittsburgh, at the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild, after a performance by The Blue Note 7.  My pictures and review of that performance can be found here.  Baby Trane is a nice and cool person too, and he knows he has some big shoes to fill, but I think he's doing a pretty good job of carrying on the funky jazz tradition.  So, always keep some diamonds in yo' mind! Take care and peace. Leepaxton (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, your enthusiasm is infectious.
 * Do you have a couple of favourite McCoy recordings?
 * Varlaam (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One particular McCoy recording that I really like is "Contemplation" from The Real McCoy - I think it has a really cool groove. There's a good version of that song on his Land of Giants album too.  Another favorite of mine is the song "Sama Layuca".  Man, I love that groove!  One of the times I saw him, I think McCoy said that he just made that word up.  On Land of Giants that song is entitled "Manalyuca".  I don't know why it was titled differently on that album, but I really like that recording.  On his album Quartet it is "Sama Layuca".  I think he played it at the 2005 Newport Jazz Festival, and I know he played it when I saw the McCoy Tyner Quartet on March 13, 2010, at the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild here in Pittsburgh (my review of that performance can be found here).  The song is relaxing and yet intense at the same time.  I think it's a great extension of the interesting style that McCoy has consistently demonstrated since his time with Trane.  A recording from October 1960 that I supremely love is "Equinox", and it features Trane, the Real McCoy, Steve Davis and Elvin Jones, and I think McCoy's chordal approach is spot-on and his melodic lead adds delightful flourishes of elegance to the relaxing yet powerful underlying rhythmic groove.  "Equinox" is mystical wisdom revealed through sound!  The song can be studied on YouTube here, and McCoy's lead part starts around 4:34 and lasts until 7:24.  That is from McCoy's first year in Trane's group, and one can hear how his style was already well crafted, and I think it's great that Trane allowed him nearly three minutes to play lead on it too.  I find it strange and interesting that "Equinox" was not officially released by Atlantic Records until 1964, four years after it was recorded, since I think that track is definitely great enough to stand up alongside the material that had been officially released prior to it.  Well, that's my opinion anyway. Leepaxton (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Real is the only one I have, but I like it a lot. That is why I ask.
 * I have my 1979 copy of Rolling Stone Record Guide here. This book is reliable or unreliable; it depends on the artist.
 * Sama Layuca is a 4-star LP here.
 * There is no mention of "Equinox". Which LP?
 * This book gives 5 stars to Echoes ..., Enlightenment, Expansions, Sahara, Supertrios, and Trident.
 * Do you concur generally with this reviewer?
 * Thanks for the tips, Varlaam (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just played Real minutes ago.
 * And "Contemplation" turns out to be my favourite too.
 * I would describe its mood as "yearning".


 * Since you are a duly accredited jazzbo brown, could you do me a favour?
 * I still have to check out your various offsite links.
 * But I have one for you.
 * I was baptized a progressive rock guy, from way back.
 * So here is an instrumental track that I'm 99% confident that you are not familiar with:
 * "Lament" by Gryphon.
 * When I thought "yearning", I thought of this. But it goes "exultant" before the end.
 * Your cut is 9:10; this is 10:49.
 * "Trying to explain music is like trying to find a critic who can really write."
 * Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The principal composer, Richard Harvey, is a significant film composer nowadays.


 * Hello Varlaam, that Rolling Stone Record Guide from 1979 sounds pretty cool. The albums it mentions are good ones as I recall, though I haven't heard Sahara, so I should probably check that one out.  The Penguin Guide to Jazz is a good resource on Jazz recordings.  I have the 9th Edition, and I agree with a lot of what it says.  Man, back in the 1990s, I got the second edition of the All Music Guide in the ol'e book form.  Remember that?  Haha!  Though I don't always agree with it, that book was like a bible of sorts for me back then.  I was in high school in the 90s, and mostly listened to rock music (like Fugazi, Tool, Nirvana, Bad Religion, and The Reverend Horton Heat).  Nobody in my family really listened to Jazz or Hindustani classical music for that matter, but both were something that I developed a liking to on my own through a general interest in different types and styles of music.  Duke Ellington was the first jazz artist I became interested in after finding a book about him in the library.  As for being inspired to listen to the music of John Coltrane, well that occurred in a somewhat strange way perhaps.  I read an article in some rock magazine around 1994, it may have been in Rolling Stone, I can't remember, but it was about Page Hamilton (who had been in the Band of Susans before starting his group Helmet) and he was praising the music of John Coltrane as basically being the most supreme.  I think the article said that Hamilton had studied jazz guitar in New York and felt that he could not play it well enough, or something to that effect, and was offered to join the Band of Susans by Robert Poss, so he went in that musical direction instead.  I was fascinated and intrigued by that interesting juxtaposition between jazz and hard rock, especially since the music that Hamilton was doing was raw with basic hard rock rhythm and minimal melody whereas jazz can have complex rhythms and diverse melodies.  Much later, I learned that expressive free-form jazz was kinda like the heavy metal music of its day and age.  But, the style of jazz that I began to explore and like the most was hard bop (and the various bop styles are basically still my favorite).  After reading that article on Page Hamilton, I had to listen to some Coltrane, so I went to the closest National Record Mart (they don't even exist anymore), which required driving from the small town in Ohio where I grew up and crossing the Ohio River to proceed to Vienna, West Virginia.  Once I got there, they only had one album by John Coltrane (remember when a lot of the older music hadn't been released on CD yet?), and it was The Best of John Coltrane, which was originally released in 1970 by Atlantic Records, so I got it and I still think that's a pretty good introduction to the music of Trane.  I immediately got into the grooves, and still love "Equinox" (which was recorded in 1960 and first released on the album  Coltrane's Sound in 1964).  About a year or so later, I drove to a particular record shop in Athens, Ohio, and got the album  Ravi Shankar In San Francisco (1967), which was the only Shankar album they had there at the time, and that helped get me more interested in Hindustani classical music.  It's a great recording, and Alla Rakha's tabla solo "Shikhar Tal" (17 beat cycle) is exceptional.  I remember seeing the 1969 film by Merchant Ivory Productions starring Michael York entitled The Guru, it used to be played on those classic movie channels a lot back in the 90s, but it's hardly ever shown anymore.  It's a mediocre film, at best, but I thought it was interesting and would like to see it again sometime (I hope it is officially released on DVD at some point too).  Anyhow, a good book on East-Meets-West musical influences is The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi by Peter Lavezzoli.  The influence that Ravi Shankar and his music had on John Coltrane was significant enough that John named one of his sons Ravi Coltrane.  Shankar himself has always been a bit reluctant to admit the influence that jazz has had on his own improvisational style, but I don't think it can be fully denied.  I think there are some interesting cross-cultural influences and connections here worth studying.  Not only that, but John's wife, Alice Coltrane, was influenced by Sri Chinmoy (as was Carlos Santana, and she and Santana collaborated on an album together entitled Illuminations in 1974), and she was also influenced by Sathya Sai Baba.  I don't think Alice's 1974 collaboration with Santana is a very good album though, and neither is Santana's 1973 collaboration with John McLaughlin entitled Love Devotion Surrender (though it is worth noting here since there are some John Coltrane covers on that record).  Santana later left Sri Chinmoy's group disillusioned, but Alice continued to practice and study Hinduism under Swami Satchidananda.  Eventually, Alice became a guru herself by the late 1970s and took the title of Swamini Turiyasangitananda and founded a Vedanta Center in California.  Her final album, Translinear Light (2004), was produced by her son Ravi, and it contains some songs with titles inspired by Hinduism.  To bring this discussion back to McCoy Tyner, he too had an album entitled Illuminations (released in 2004), though it is a different composition (one of his own) than the one on the Alice Coltrane and Carlos Santana collaboration of the same name from 1974 (by Tom Coster and Santana), but I think McCoy's album is much better.


 * As for the funky "medieval / modern" grooves of "Lament" (1974) by Gryphon, I think parts of it could be described as "yearning". At 7:26 it sounds kinda like an old NES video game (which brings back some good memories).  Then, it almost shifts to some funky late 70s porn music like Debbie Does Dallas for a bit, and the part at the end during the last minute could be described as "exultant".  I figure if you dig this funky stuff, you'd probably also like Romantic Warrior (1976) by Chick Corea's group Return to Forever.  That album is pretty funky too.  Man, one time I ran into Chick Corea down on the muthafuckin' street in downtown Pittsburgh.  He was nice and cool as heck too.  So, keep right on groovin' on! Leepaxton (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Penguin Guide to Jazz. I've chatted with its editor a couple of times. Friendly enough fellow. I do have a fat copy of the All Music Guide. That thing is a doorstop.
 * I'm also a classical guy so I have a number of old editions of that Penguin Guide.
 * A book we used for music reference before online existed was the Rock Record in hardcover which was a very basic listing of who had made which albums and when and who all of the sidemen were. In the 1980s that information was not available otherwise.
 * Hindustani, eh? I saw some concerts in the 1980s. Nusrat Ali Khan I think? A friend was into that, not me so much.
 * Ellington's always been a bit too big band for me.
 * My original favourite jazz guy is Jelly Roll. That's back in university, so 30+ years ago. I'd tried Django before that because he was much loved by a science fiction author I know, Harlan Ellison. Django's too light for me. The soundtrack from the recent Woody Allen movie Midnight in Paris sounds like Django.
 * So it was Jelly on LP. King Oliver later, on CD.
 * [Your response is very discursive and I gotta run. So skipping to the end.]
 * Debbie, eh? That reminds me of one of my ex's.
 * Funky? Really? There is no music I listen to that I would describe as "funky". Well, except maybe for Curtis Mayfield; a friend made me listen to Superfly.
 * Funky. Well, this is why it's good to get different perspectives on things.
 * When I think of porn music, I think of late 1970s porn musicals with funny lyrics. We went to one for my 16th birthday I think it was. We were pretty hammered. (This was in Europe where 16 + hammered was a more socially acceptable combination.) And some King Crimson is used in ... Emmanuelle, I think? So, music better than crappy movie. I saw that one on the Champs-Élysées in Paris, a major waste of time. What were we thinking? I remember; we thought it would be raunchier than the Canadian version. It wasn't. We were just backpacking kids then.
 * "Lament". Funky porn. It's going to take me a while to let that sink in. Since that piece of music is about a chess game.
 * I do believe I have Romantic Warrior on LP. I saw Chick here for free in the 1970s. He was so-so, but we didn't hang around enough maybe. Free concert, right? This was at Ontario Place where the price of admission to the park used to include whoever was playing on the rotating stage. So my gal's favourite Donovan; Don McLean doing "American Pie"; and so on, all for free. I saw Johnny Cash for free once too, but that was in Denmark, and it was a surprise. I went to the park to see the park; didn't know I'd get a free Cash concert. More recently I saw Boston for free, Creed for free, Sarah McLachlan for free, but they've now disallowed the trick that made it free. Boston for free was a heck of a lot of fun. Made me want to pull out my old LP.
 * Chick on the street. In my experience if you run into that level of celebrity on the street, it goes very well. They now get less attention than they used to and they (secretly) hope to meet a fan, a real fan, not some autograph-seeking asshole, but someone who really knows their work.
 * Actors, actresses, musicians, if you're friendly and knowledgeable and break off before you become a nuisance, that can go very nicely.
 * Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Celebrities on the street.
 * US movies are being shot here in town every week. So, if you were a parasite, you could hang out outside the clubs, restaurants, etc. where such people are known to congregate. But I think Torontonians like the fact that Toronto is fairly relaxed, so those people can walk around more freely than they can in other cities. So they can go to the big bookstore, or the antique market, and they don't get harassed here. I have been told, for example, that Jada Pinkett is very pleasant to speak to.
 * I remember once years ago I was downtown, and I took a shortcut up a nearly deserted street. I was probably mulling over some issue we were having at the office. Further up the sidewalk was a trailer and some people chatting. It's only when I got abreast of them that I noticed it was Dabney Coleman talking to Joanna Cassidy and Crispin Glover, an odd combination. I was 2-3 ft from Coleman when I noticed who they were.
 * And I still have not seen that movie. The reviews were so-so. Varlaam (talk)

Hello Varlaam,

A peculiar dictionary of the late 1960s or early 1970s (the cover is worn off from use, so if you know the source please inform me) says the following:

"Funk·y (fǔng’kē) adj. funk·i·er, funk·i·est. Slang. 1. Having a lively, pulsating quality with a mixture of jazz, rock, and blues, often with soul-music overtones: funky music. 2. Marked by self-expression and originality; modish and"... the rest of the page is torn off, but I would like to find the rest. Wait a moment, another piece just fell on the floor (I ain't bullshittin'), and it continues, "unconventional: funky clothes. 3. Outlandishly vulgar or far-out in a humorous manner: a funky movie. –funk’i·ness, n."

This reference has been the source of the main definition(s) of that word for me since I was a child, because this book was one I grew up with. Now I realize there are other meanings, but the definition of the "Funk" doesn't always just mean the P-Funk, or "funked out with a gangsta twist".

I think that a part of understanding this is how white people can begin to comprehend African-American music. In my opinion, African-American music is the greatest music EVER. Don't get me wrong, white music is good, Asian music too, even Prog-Rock, all is good, but African-American (in my opinion) is the SUPREME music (from The Supremes to A Love Supreme).

The reason I say this is because I think the best music is the most organic, raw, natural, and expressive/cathartic type. This doesn't mean that it can't be sophisticated or complex, because it can, but it doesn't necessarily need to be too complex either. It has to be true and come from the very inner being of what one IS, and one must try and give it their all, every time, as best they can no matter what. It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of life or death, but sometimes, it might be, and sometimes that's the way it is. The reason I think that hard bop and the styles of jazz that it influenced are the highest form of musical expression that humans have attained thus far in history is because it is the most intense form of musical expression that is focused around a solid "groove", without being too aimlessly meandering, but with an atmosphere that can still reach as far (creatively) into the musical cosmos as a person can reach through improvisational virtuosity (in low, middle, and high-end grooves) with and without structure and/or form and then slide (seemingly effortlessly) back into the main structure of the groove again, well, I think this is the epitome of sonic expression, beauty, strength, love and joy (it is chaos and order mixed in a truly FUNKY aural cocktail that is "loose as a goose" and "so tight it's out-of-sight" too – or, as one honest but raunchy dude once said, "loose but tight, just like the best Vaginas!" OH, HOT SUGARY SHIT, that raunchy fucker was none other than me!)

The organic folk and roots music that I grew up with was really the initial basis for my explorations into sound. I am originally from Southeastern Ohio, and the music was mainly Appalachian. That is to say, "hillbilly music". My grandfather saw all the pioneers of Bluegrass music in their "heyday". This was back when a person could go to the Grand Ole Opry and go right up and shake the hand of Ernest Tubb or Roy Acuff. This music informed me, and I have made the pilgrimage to the homestead of Bill Monroe - The Father of Bluegrass Music. This is akin to Mecca for Appalachians! I have touched the hand of Norman Blake, and I have sat at the right hand of Doc Watson! I have heard that "high lonesome sound" through the pines, which is really the white American equivalent of a thousand Buddhist monks chanting the holiest of mantras in the Himalayas! The Appalachian mountains are older than the Himalayas - they are probably the oldest known mountains on earth! Native American civilizations, like the Adena and the Hopewell, lived there thousands of years ago, their FUNKY earthen mounds still remain, and then a mixture of European settlers moved in and took over (at first, primarily a mix of English, French, Scottish, and Scotch-Irish, and then Germans and Dutch, and later Irish, and all of these people are my ancestors). This music lingered and developed for many years, from Stephen Foster to the Carter Family, but in the 1940s, Bill Monroe combined the folk music and traditional styles brought to America from the British Isles with the Blues he heard from an African-American man named Arnold Shultz – and Blues-grass (or Bluegrass) was born. A more in-depth analysis of this true "hillbilly" music can be found in Bluegrass Breakdown: The Making of the Old Southern Sound by Robert Cantwell (2003).

My mother grew up hearing bluegrass music but she also listened to the popular folk music of the 1960s, such as Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie. I grew up hearing her strumming acoustic guitar and singing their songs. She really liked John Denver, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell and Carole King too (among others). When my father was growing up, he rebelled against the "hillbilly music" because he thought it was "hokey" and "corny" (he loves it now - through my influence), but after he saw The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show he got into "rock n' roll". Some of the records that he had in his collection that I used to sneak out and listen to as a child were among the following: Cream, The Doors, Santana, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd. Around the time I was born, the Sex Pistols came out and the Bee Gees were on top of the charts. So, that's a bit of where I'm coming from musically.

My point in this "discursive" message is to highlight the fact that American music (rock, blues, jazz, etc.) is primarily a mix of European American and African American styles - a culmination of black blues and white hillbilly tones which led to Rockabilly, Rock music (and all of its sub-genres), and to the freaky funky fusion and modern electronic phantasmagoria of the present day. But, of course, I'm sure you probably know all of this stuff since you have those Penguin Guides to Music and that ultra-funky doorstop known as the All Music Guide. It probably says somewhere in there that the syncopated "ragtimey" blues of Mississippi John Hurt and Bo Carter is kinda like the hillbilly murder ballads of Appalachia (like the ones strummed on a dulcimer by Jean Ritchie) and the grooves from medieval England thus marinated and dipped in the funk of ages eventually led to the likes of Snoop Doggy Dogg. I mean, holy shit, my man, Bo Carter's Please Warm My Weiner (circa 1928) is as raunchy as today's raunchiest grooves! "I don't want you to warm half my weiner, I want you to warm him all!" (I think I saw something like that on a bathroom wall once).

America can be a crazy place sometimes where a lot of crazy, wild stuff happens. This history, as well as the unreasonable oppression of various peoples over time has taken a heavy toll on our society. Nevertheless, the music that America has spawned, because it is so culturally diverse, is that which has significantly and artistically enriched the world.

Well, now that I got my funky shit out of the way, I shall now address the points that you made.


 * Nusrat Ali Khan kicks ass. Sometimes crazy religious chant music is almost so good it can make a person want to convert, until one realizes that religion is superstitious bullshit and that music and love are really the only true religion.  Well, that's my opinion anyway.


 * You said, "Ellington's always been a bit too big band for me." Well, I like the Big Band grooves too though.  The Duke and The Count are fine with me.  I can dig the swing.  It reminds me of those classic cartoons I used to watch when I was growing up (ya know, the ones where they were selling War Bonds to Beat Hitler).  Also, probably the first "jazz band" I ever saw was the "Cantina Band" in Star Wars.  I remember thinking those grooves were freakin' great, haha!  I think Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa and Louie Bellson played some good drums too.


 * Jelly Roll and Django! That could be the name of a cool boutique.  The string swing of Django is cool and funky to me.  His cohort, Stéphane Grappelli, later recorded some bluegrass/newgrass infused grooves with David Grisman.  I think all string band music the world over, whether it's Gypsy, Eastern European, Asian, Appalachian, Mariachi, or whatever, has certain similar analogous properties.  Well, all or most music has analogous properties, but some music has more analogous properties than others.


 * You said, "'Lament'. Funky porn. It's going to take me a while to let that sink in. Since that piece of music is about a chess game." I meant the part that starts right after it sounded like an old NES video game, and this part specifically begins at 7:39 in the video you linked above and continues to about 9:21.  That part kinda reminded me of a particular song from a particular part of Debbie Does Dallas.  I did not mean that in a disparaging way though!  Anyhow, perhaps I should dust off an old VHS tape and see if I can find that part in the film and describe it in explicit detail - no wait, I just used the Google search engine and found that particular part online (ain't the internets lovely?).  It's the part where Arcadia Lake and Georgette Sanders go down on that dude in the record store!  DAMN, I worked at a record store years ago and that funky shit never occurred once in that place!


 * You said, "I saw Chick here for free in the 1970s." Free is the best type of free jazz, in my opinion.  Chicky Baby and his band played for free down at the Three Rivers Arts Festival in Pittsburgh a few years back.  I remember he had the crowd get involved at the end and chant in different tones, and the effect was very moving.  I had a good time.  I've seen a lot of good free jazz shows, and I got to meet Joe Lovano as well as Jean-Luc Ponty after different performances at Hartwood Acres Park.  Another good one was Arturo Sandoval.  I've seen a lot of good free shows over the last ten years too, and one of my favorites was John Prine.  I thought Lucinda Williams put on a good show for free too.  Some musicians seem to "phone-in" their free shows, but some really pull out all the stops just as if everyone in the crowd paid to see 'em.  I thought that Richard Thompson really put on a great free show at the Three Rivers Arts Fest the time I saw him.  Man, I've seen so many free shows I can't even remember them all by now.  But regarding Chick Corea, I just saw him play a solo performance a month ago at the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild.  It was not a free show, but it was good and he played some different material like Bartók.


 * You said, "I saw Johnny Cash for free once". My grandfather saw him play at the Ohio State Fair many years ago.  Also, one time he was in Nashville, on a bus tour, and June Carter Cash came out of their house and talked to everyone.  He said she was really nice.  I met Rosanne Cash after a free performance at the Three Rivers Arts Festival in Pittsburgh, and I thought she was a really nice person.  My great uncle Cliff Jinks (1914–1993) started Legend Valley Park in Ohio, and he got to meet a lot of country music legends back in the day.  He started it originally as a country music park.  It became a hard rock music venue in the 80s and 90s, and now it is a place where modern hippies go to get funky (in probably every possible definition of that word).  It's kinda funny how places start out and how they can change over time.


 * You said, "Boston for free was a heck of a lot of fun. Made me want to pull out my old LP." My dad saw Boston circa 1976 at the Convocation Center (Ohio University).  I can't say that I was ever really into them though.  I do like Jethro Tull.  I dig Aqualung!  My dad had some good 70s prog-rock in his collection too, though I tended to like his rock records from the late 1960s better (probably because they were more blues and jazz inspired like the Cream, the Doors, Santana, etc.)  I've always generally preferred a more organic type of music, personally, but I have to admit that there is some good playing on some of those old prog-rock records.  Yes, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake & Palmer are some of the ones that I can remember.


 * You said about Toronto: "US movies are being shot here in town every week... I still have not seen that movie. The reviews were so-so."  Yeah, there are a lot of so-so movies filmed here in Pittsburgh too.  Someday I hope a really great one is filmed here (not that all the ones that have been filmed here are complete crap though).  Since you are Canadian, not that you all know each other, but I really like Sarah Polley.  Ain't she a sweetheart?  It's cool people like her, Leonard Cohen, Neil Young, and Joni Mitchell that might make one think about going up north sometimes.  Anyhow, when I was younger, I used to watch Sarah Polley on the family TV show Road to Avonlea.  The guy who played her uncle "Alec King" in the show was Cedric Smith, and he was in a Canadian band from the late 1960s into the 1970s called the Perth County Conspiracy from Stratford, Ontario.  I think their album Does Not Exist (1970) is all right.

I think I've rambled on enough for now. Until next time, take care, and keep on gettin' funky in every sense of the word! Leepaxton (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lee,
I stumbled across your picture File:PointofViewSculpturePittsburgh.jpg recently while trying to think something through and decided to try for a second opinion, from you. Partly because your attitudes and experiences while posting pictures of sculpture seem to parallel mine quite closely. Anyway, currently the article that you have so ably illustrated shows up in a Category:Cultural depictions of George Washington. Were the picture of Abraham Lincoln it would be in Category:Abraham Lincoln in art. It seems to me that we should be using one or the other (probably not both) in all cases. I have just discovered this anomaly and don't yet know how it is used elsewhere. I favor the "art" category but am inclined to ask around a bit before charging in and slash and burning all over the place. Any ideas? Opininos? Theories? Suggestions? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Carptrash, I agree with you that "art" is probably the better way to go as far as this matter is concerned. Art is what we're talking about here, and art is something that extends from culture.  In this case, a "cultural depiction" just seems like a more cumbersome way of saying "art". Leepaxton (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FredRogersStatueinPittsburghPA.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:FredRogersStatueinPittsburghPA.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Westinghouse Atom Smasher
If you ever return/check out this page, I wanted to let you know that I used your great photo File:WestinghouseAtomSmasher.jpg in Westinghouse Atom Smasher, and that the photo was part of a DYK: Recent additions/Template:Did you know nominations/Westinghouse Atom Smasher--GrapedApe (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, now I'll see if I can get a picture of another Westinghouse production: The Nimatron. Leepaxton (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pictures from Pittsburgh museum
Hello.

I saw on the Commons website that you uploaded pictures of Pittsburgh museum, that's the reason why i send you this message.

I'm looking for pictures of the Nimatron, an automata built in 1940. The Nimatron (google translation) should be at the "Buhl Planetarium and Institute of Popular Science Building". Are you, in any way, able to go there and take some pictures of it and then upload them to the Commons website ?

I already asked this 2 times without answer here (Pittsburgh portal, village pump). I also leaved a message today here

Regards --Archimëa (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Archimëa, I took this picture of the exterior of the Buhl Planetarium, but I've never actually been inside the building yet, but I can try to contact them and see if the Nimatron is inside and if I can go there and get a picture of it. Give me a couple of weeks to check on this, and I'll try to get back to you in a timely manner. Leepaxton (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Unfortunately, as of right now, no one seems to know what happened to the Nimatron, and perhaps it has been misplaced or maybe even worse.  I can tell you that the current whereabouts of the Nimatron is a mystery.  If I find out any further information about it, I will be sure to tell you as soon as that information is available.


 * According to The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic, Revised Edition by Richard A. Epstein (1995, 1977), on page 348 it says, "The first such computer was the Nimatron, patented in 1940 by Dr. Edward U. Condon, former director of the National Bureau of Standards. Built by the Westinghouse Electrical Corporation, Nimatron was exhibited at the New York World's Fair.  At present it reposes in the scientific collection of the Buhl planetarium in Pittsburgh."  But when I emailed their Director of Exhibits, Dennis Bateman, he said, "I'm afraid we have no institutional knowledge or record of the Nimatron being here now at the Buhl Planetarium (within Carnegie Science Center), or at the original Buhl Planetarium.  I myself have been with the institution 27 years, and have never heard of this artifact. As a science center, we are not a collections-based museum – we don't have archives or artifact displays, and never have. If the Nimatron ever was at Buhl, it must have been part of a temporary display."


 * Since Westinghouse made it, I wondered if perhaps it was in the old Westinghouse Air Brake Company General Office Building ("the castle") in Wilmerding, PA, but I just read an article that said that building was recently sold. Another article I found online seems to indicate that the historical Westinghouse items that were in the building were donated to the Heinz History Center, and that is why I emailed their curators and archivists and asked them if they had any information on the Nimatron and its whereabouts.  A research assistant named Gale Stevenson at the Heinz History Center's library reference desk sent me a message that said, "We have been working on your question and have no answer.  We are able to verify that "Nimatron" was at the [Buhl] Planetarium for 2 months as part of the "Playground of Science" from the 1940 World's Fair, opening Nov 30th 1940.  It returned in May, 1941. The next we found, from an article Dec 4, 1952, simply says, "Nimatron, the question man, slunk out of the Planetarium after flubbing a few easy questions" no additional information as to when or where "he" went. We did find a description that it was 8' tall and about 36" square, not something easily overlooked."


 * So far, that's all the information I've been able to find about the Nimatron. If I'm able to find out anything else, I'll be sure to send that information along to you as soon as possible. Leepaxton (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing a merger of 8 articles previously created by you several years ago titled Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] plus possibly other articles on locks and dams on the Allegheny River or it's tributaries. I put an RFC notice on the talk page for article Talk:Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 3. The reason is they're all closely related, and someone looking for one, has to search back and forth among 8 articles. There's never going to be more to say about any of them than there is now, and that comprises only about 8 modest paragraphs, not even half a decent length article. Sbalfour (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:BillMonroeGravestoneImage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:BillMonroeGravestoneImage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)