User talk:HoboJones

talking box

Pennsylvania General Assembly Election Page

I see you have been doing some good work with PA politics. I have been doing a lot of the same stuff and its good to have help. I did want to let you know that I reverted your new table for the Senate elections back. I think you have a good idea there, but I don't think the format is quite right and it looked a bit clumsy. I think once you perfect that table a bit, its going to be great. But in the meantime, I think the page should stay the way it is.

Also, I see you have been adding pages about policitians. Good show. Its one of those things I have been trying to get to. Montco (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Couple of things. The Party and status columns are longer than they need to be. That results in the names getting scrunched onto two lines. The vote totals are all missing commas (I know its picky). While its not relevant to the Senate in 2006 it is relevant to the House in that we listed whether or not the seat was a party retention or takeover. That's useful to me at least. Again, that's nothing that can't be fixed. But templates and that nonsense aren't my forte.

Unfortunately I seem to be the cleanup guy on a lot of this stuff You should have seen the election table before I got to it. Someone had started on it and quit. And don't go into the stilted politician pages that I ultimately have to work on. So this may be a bit self-serving in that I am trying to get this done the right way the first go around. Montco (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I don't have any philosohical opposition to a template. I merely thought tha in its form at the time, its looked a bit clumsy. If I knew anything about doing this, I would consider adding length to the candidates name and status. I think a quick not about whether the incumbent retired or was defeated in the primary is probably significant. Not sure what you think on that. Maybe I will try and play with it myself if I can convince myself that I wont **** it up.Montco (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I am sure its fine. You're doing a great job. Montco (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Election box tempate talk page deletions

talk

Thanks for the heads-up and sorry about the inconvenience. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my reply

Clemente

my talk

Zach, I like the Clemente poem plaque. I don't think the Historic Landmark plaque adds anything to the article though, although I think it is worth noting in the text of the article that it is a Pittsburgh Historic & Landmark Foundation Historic Landmark. The problem with the article on the bridge is that the article is very short and there really is not a great place to embed the photo within the article unless the article is expanded. You might want to think about creating a photo gallery for the bridge at the end of the article. I'm sure there are other good pictures of the bridge itself that could be added later. You could put both of your photos in a gallery if you wanted, but I'd definitely add the plaque with the poem somehow. I think the poem, or picture of the bridge itself, could also be added to the Roberto Clemente article under Posthumous honors. FYI, there is a project on Flickr photo sharing site that is attempting to collect pictures of the Historic Landmark plaques in Pittsburgh. You may be interested in that project. Also, here is a link to a list of all the PHLF Historic Plaques (at least through 2005). Please let me know if you get anymore Pitt pictures. There are several that are needed. I'm based in Philly so I have limited ability to get photos. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAND

my reply

I'm not sure whether to leave the RAND building in the list. The land the building is constructed on is owned by Pitt according to the Allegheny County Property Assessment website. The building is actually owned by a developer who constructed it and rents it out (the RAND Corporation it its primary tenant). Typically, how these deals are done is that Pitt would give a long-term lease to the developer. The building could revert back to Pitt over time. It's not really a Pitt building, but at the same time the land is Pitt's. Pitt also highlights it on its latest campus maps as a Pitt building (as the RAND corporation has close collaborations with some of Pitt's institutes), so I'll probably leave it as is for now. However, it does fall somewhere in a gray area as far as a "Pitt building" though. BTW, thanks for all your pictures. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my reply

PA Elections

my talk

I had to go fix all of the wikilinks again, but looks fine. Montco (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Pics

my talk

Great pictures! A couple of notes. The photo you have as Pennsylvania Hall is actually Panther Hall. The unknown dorm Image:UpperResidenceHallPitt.jpg on the upper campus is actually Pennsylvania Hall (sitting on the site of the former medical school building of the same name). 3501 Forbes building is actually called the Oxford Building, so I added its photo to the list. The 3500 building on Fifth Ave is privately owned although Pitt, UPMC, Quest diagnostics and the long standing pharmacy storefront all rent space in it. I refrained from including in the list buildings that Pitt doesn't directly own (or the control with the deed technically held by the state in Pitt's behalf) because it would grow unmanageable. I also refrained from adding things outside of Pittsburgh (although I first was doing it) because it was also growing unmanageable with things like RIDC park center, U-Parc, etc. Thanks again. Great photos! If you're taking requests, buildings I would love to have (because the have their own articles or could support their own) are Fitzgerald Field House, Trees Hall, and the Cost Indoor Sports Center (all close to each other on the upper campus), the Child Development Center (just off the campus in Shadyside), and the UPMC Sports Performance Complex across the hot metal bridge. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could sneak in and get inside picts of the sports complexes that would be good too (e.g. like Trees Hall pool and gymnastics facility). Also, while your up in that area, Darragh Street medical student housing complex and a representative fraternity complex building could use some photos. FYI, it would probably be good to tag your Wiki Commons uploads with Category:University of Pittsburgh to help people find them. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've already found them, but Image:130BellefieldPittsburgh.JPG = Bellefield Professional Building, Image:130BellefieldPittsburgh2.JPG = School of Information Sciences building, Image:PittOffCampus.JPG=a rear wing of Ruskin Hall (which, btw, is definitely "on-campus")CrazyPaco (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a photo wanted section for the Pitt Wikiproject is a great idea. If you want to add it before I get around to it, it is all you! Please feel free to take the initiative on any of those things because it sometimes takes me awhile to get to them myself. I just don't think you'll be seeing the Turkish Nationality Room pic for awhile ;-) Trees is a pretty ugly building, there is really not much to improve on, but I think I'll build an article around it since it is an athletic venue...I may even springboard that off to a swimming team article like I did for wresting. Pitt seems to have its share of ugly buildings from the 60s era, but at least Pitt is sooo much better photo documented now...actually, I don't think there is another school on wikipedia that has its campus better documented at the moment. As far as Trees, try these photos for inspiration [1][2]. My memory is telling me there may be an ok shot if you stand on Allequippa St, around the driveway that goes up to the OC lot/Cost center, there may be an ok shot there over the grass...or not. The wavy roof could be a cool feature of the building to try to highlight. There may not be a much better outside shot than the one depicted in the first linked photo. By the way, that was a really nice shot of Hillman Library. I don't think you can get a better day shot. I also don't think you can get better shots of Cost and the SRCC, except maybe if the sky cooperated better. I really hate the SRCC, they were so stupid building that, joining it right up against the nicest features and thus destroying the major entrance and facade of Thaw Hall. If you ever look at old pictures of Thaw, you'll see why that was so idiotic. Also, that was a great shot of Barco. If I get some time, I may try to correct that one a little bit in Photoshop if you don't mind, of course you can veto the results in that case. But, it is the best shot of Barco so far regardless, at least IMHO. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can rearrange WP:Pitt anyway you see fit.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, don't bother trying to get any shots of Trees Pool, its undergoing a $2 million renovation this summer and won't be open again until Sept. 1st. Fitzgerald Field House is also undergoing renovations. CrazyPaco (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Wikiproject News

There is an ongoing debate regarding the introduction of the article for the University of Pittsburgh. In search of WP:Consensus, please let your opinion be known regarding the debate and possible solutions at Talk:University of Pittsburgh. Thank you and Hail to Pitt! CrazyPaco (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Zach, I was very surprised and impressed that you were able to figure out how to get permission for Dippy sculpture photo. I have no idea as to what channels you went through at the Carnegie for that. I'm wondering whether we should be proactive for seeking permissions for the art work photos that are now part of a good many of the Pitt-related articles. The Panther statues and all of the Virgil Cantini work seems as if it might be in danger of similar issues.CrazyPaco (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building List

Hi Zach, I actually used that building list to help build my list article as a check to make sure I wasn't missing anything. That list is addresses for the Pitt campus mail system which would include rental spaces in non-owned buildings and outreach groups based off-site. I systematically went through and double checked all the Pittsburgh buildings listed on that page against the Allegheny Assessment website to make sure. However, there are many buildings on that list that are not Pitt or UPMC buildings and not even around the campus. For instance, Pitt does not own the VA Hospital, Webster Hall or Wyndham Garden Hotel, or the land they sit on. I tried to keep the list manageable by restricting it to only University of Pittsburgh owned buildings sitting within the city limits of Pittsburgh. As I noted, there are other buildings that they owned outside the city (like the research park in Harmarville) as well as all the buildings on the regional campuses. It is hard to confirm ownership outside Allegheny County because tax assessment websites for other counties don't always exist. The tax assessment page also helps with the list of UPMC buildings, because UPMC is harder to research (the buildings aren't always as obvious or documented on their website). Expanding things outside of Pittsburgh would be very hard to do for UPMC. Anyway, I think I've gotten all of the Pitt owned buildings inside the city on the list (maybe not all the UPMC ones). This doesn't include buildings Pitt or UPMC rent space in but do not own (e.g. USX tower in the case of UPMC). Including buildings that have space rented by the University would make it much harder to be accurate and complete, and very difficult to verify, and I think would dilute the list too much. I've already got things on there like the Best Western (which although the deed is listed by Allegheny County as belonging to Pitt who probably rents the space to Best Western's developer, no one would consider it a Pitt building) and the Melwood Maintenance Building that are of questionable interest but included for completeness under the present criteria. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think the more pictures the better. We'll find a use for them and its good to have choice too, and to keep improving the quality of them. Actually, for some of the not-so-quite notable buildings, you can link to the photo whose wikimedia caption can contain information about it.CrazyPaco (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach, I don't know if you are a student at Pitt, but maybe you can answer this question about the article for Trees Hall. Pitt's online tour information indicates that Trees has 5 basketball courts. I think they took 2 of them out to make the Gymnastics Training Center on the far end of the existing courts, but I can't remember from my days at Pitt whether there were additional courts on the second floor. This is really minutia, but do you know how many basketball courts currently exist in Trees these days?CrazyPaco (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting images up for deletion

I undid Your edit to Image:LightUpbyTonySmith.JPG as You gave no reasons for permanently deleting the image from Wikipedia and also You deleted the image source and licensing information. Please be more careful. Best, feydey (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Fair use/Copyright Issues

Hi there. When you're talking about the three examples you mentioned, there are no serious copyright concerns. For the two building photos, the subject is the building or neighborhood and the logo happens to be there; even if you were taking a photo for the purpose of identifying the hot dog store or sign on the barn, it would be acceptable (otherwise how could we take photos of things like Times Square). While the owner has IP rights (in this case both copyright and trademark), this situation is not a part of what people think about when they talk about IP enforcement and, off the top of my head, I've never heard of an IP owner even bringing it up unless the person who took the photo is clearly using it to profit off of the IP (cropping everything else out, more or less using it like a copy-machine; so be careful with paintings that are not in the public domain); this is also part of why some art galleries forbid photography. Standard public street signs are no more of an issue than taking a picture of a standard stop sign; there maybe a government IP holder, but it isn't going to come up. --Bobak (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that some European countries have slightly different laws about these things; though that doesn't mean they are any stricter with enforcement. I am writing completely from what I know of the American perspective. --Bobak (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at User:Bobak#Fair use/Copyright Issues.--Appraiser (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to [[::Image:LightUpbyTonySmith.JPG]], did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:LightUpbyTonySmithForbesQuad.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:LightUpbyTonySmithForbesQuad.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:LightUpbyTonySmithForbesQuad.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrillo Street Steam Plant

Hey Zach, the steam plant is actually looks like part of Trees Hall...it was designed to blend in. It is on the rear side of Trees (same side of the street), almost adjacent, you almost can't tell it is a separate building. Look here for what it approximately looks like. Great job on all the photos! CrazyPaco (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the some pictures on the Barco Law Building that you updated the name for are now broken.

Thanks for the pics! I'm going to create a UPMC Sports Performance article when I get the chance...it might be awhile. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Veon

Why not simply use the booking photo in that section and remove the second infobox. Two infoboxes in one article are kind of pointless. Garion96 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can count me in favor of he dumb argument though, I had no idea it was non-free content. In this case, it doesn't add much to the article, it already states in text he was arrested. I don't think it is undue weight btw, to me it just is unnecessary fair use. Before I tag the image as replaceable perhaps you could explain why do you think it is necessary to have the image. Garion96 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source that? The impact that photo had on the American media? That's always the easiest and best way to keep non-free content. Source it why a particular image is so important. Right now when I look at the article it doesn't show anything. Actually, it doesn't even show why he was arrested in the first place! (talk about a BLP violation). Garion96 (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veon

Why can't we pull his old House photo which is public and therefore in the public domain? Montco (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not on the website anymore, but this is his public domain photo. PA-Report uses the official pictures. http://www.pa-report.com/officials/official.cfm?officialid=1607 Montco (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt photos

Thanks again for the photos! I deleted the teachers center as as per article it is probably now demolished. The new photo you have looks like construction field offices, but I'm not 100% sure as I'm not really familiar with the Falk School layout. The closest photo of BST South is probably actually the last one (#6 Image:BSTSouth(6).jpg) although I think it is actually somewhat behind the angled glass facade (which I believe is part of Eye and Ear). It is an annex on the side of the original BST (Starzl) but it may be built somewhat on top of Eye and Ear as well. It is not marked outside to what it is but it was constructed later and it is clearly distinguished in both its mailing addresses and how it is referred to internally by Pitt. I worked for two years in BST South and it is even hard for me to identify on the outside. BST and BST South actually share a ground floor lobby, which is where the entrance on Lothrop St actually says Ear and Eye...you walk through it and you come out on the other side of the lobby on Darragh St. where there is the sign for Starzl which you had taken another picture of before (Image:ThomasE.StarzlBiomedicalScienceTowerPitt.jpg). The clearest photo of South BST may be to take it above that lobby exit on Darragh St (further down the hill, sort of the same angle as #6 but from Darragh) but I actually have no idea if you can get that angle well or not. It's a pretty obscure distinction but from the following map you can sort of see the south wing to the left of Eye and Ear and towards the bottom "South" of the original (and larger) BST (BST map) (It isn't marked as South BST though, just "BST"). Your first photo is actually a really good one of Ear and Eye Institute which I added to the list of UPMC buildings.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the 6th photo of BST on the list for the moment...it is at least close and shows the entrance most people use to access it. If you don't get to try other photos, don't sweat it...you've already gone above and beyond. I'm going to use your first photo as Eye and Ear so don't delete that, but I wouldn't necessarily say you'd have to delete any of the photos as they may get used at some point. If there is ever an article written on BST or Eye and Ear they could be used. As far as it being a featured list, I've have no problem if you want to nominate it as such. I'm not satisfied with it myself mainly because I know there is missing information on construction dates and architects, those sorts of things. I've pretty much hit a wall with investigating that information here...I'd have to go to the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh or to the History and Landmarks foundation to find out some of the missing info...but I don't think that should hold you back if you want to send it up for featured list status. One thing for sure, it is the most comprehensive college building list on wikipedia (the next closest one is probably List of Syracuse University buildings where I got the idea originally), and it is the most comprehensive list of Pitt buildings and information (especially with the affiliated articles) anywhere on the web or even in print for that matter. I actually think it would be quite useful for new students or faculty at Pitt, so I thank you very much for doing all the work with uploading those photos as I think it has turned into a pretty useful resource.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're all essentially BST South!CrazyPaco (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta tell you though, don't get your hopes up about it getting featured list. I think people will have problems with missing info and they'll probably want in-line references for all the info on the table...which would take a lot of time to add.CrazyPaco (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved

		The Pittsburgh Star
		For creation, expansion, and photo contribution to articles and lists related to the City of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photos

I think Cantini may still be alive and lives around/in Oakland, it may be possible to get his release. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach, I'm not annoyed at all about the Fair Use. It's a good idea. I'm ok, just been busy with other things. Hope all is well. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season GA review

Perhaps you would be inclined to participate at Talk:2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season/GA1? Thanks, Grsz ^talk 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]