User talk:Ncarty97

Proposed deletion of New York Texas Exes


The article New York Texas Exes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Permanent University Fund
Hi, I'm an editor working on Texas Public Education articles. You recently reverted an edit I made to the article Permanent University Fund, which specifically related to funding of other, non-PUF, schools. The intention of the remark was to make it clear to readers that the PUF does not benefit non-UT or A&M system schools (and in fact funding to campuses that are not Austin of College Station is also controlled strictly). I think it's rational to make this clear at the beginning of the article, because without wading through the very poorly written history section you can't get easy access to this information. The name of the fund, also, (Permanent University Fund) gives the impression that funding is applied to all schools, equally (like all other funding in the State of Texas) - which is not the case. Finally, my research has indicated that UT Alumni in particular have been working since the mid-80's to actively conceal this issue from the public eye (where public funds owned by the people of Texas are diverted to UT Austin and College Station preferrentially) - so I'd like to hear your rationale beyond "it being redundant" (the mention of 50% is certainly obvious though I don't know that it's redundant, but the statement that money is not given to other public schools in Texas is *not* redundant.

If redundancy is truly the issue, I'd like to propose alternate wording to the statement in question:

The publicly-owned PUF provides no funding to other public Universities in the State of Texas; all money is directed only to UT System and A&M system.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on this change. Sahrin (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your change gives the false impression that there is some intervening reason for other Universities to be denied funding. There is no.  I do not have a 'bias,' I have examined the issue and know that there is an imperfection in the Texas school funding formula.  There's no harm in pointing out the formula for funding, which is all the comment does.  I'm interested that you are so insistent that it *not* be pointed out that funding is denied to non-PUF schools, though.  I asked in my original comment, and I'll ask again:  why is it important that this information be withheld from the article? Sahrin (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think because the fact that the PUF already points to UT Sys and A&M Sys as recipients, stating them again is redundant. I am thinking of something like this:


 * The PUF does not provide funding to any other public Universities in the State of Texas. Sahrin (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Texas Exes - New York Chapter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Texas Exes - New York Chapter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Texas Exes - New York Chapter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)