User talk:Crazypaco

Home	Talk	Email	Images	Sandbox

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the user talk page for CrazyPaco, where you can send messages and comments. Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I automatically archive my talk page using MiszaBot. Any topics older than 60 days will be sent to the archives.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crazypaco.

TUSC token 1772135bc8c176de1a29800475e349f4

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token af1396ca610b67ec01f31fcb93438371

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token f289ac18c07483026196bef23c670892

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Painting the panthers

It's been a bit more recent than 40 years ago. I recall while I was going to CMU in the early 1980s that they got painted pink before the Penn State game one year. - Ken keisel (talk)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Crazypaco! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 00:29, Monday, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Pitt designation

Hello Crazypaco. Just so I am clear about your 1255294654 revert of "private" in the lede & infobox of University of Pittsburgh please explain. If not private, should it be designated as "public" as are Lincoln University, Pennsylvania State University, and Temple University (which each have "public" in their ledes, etc.)? Also, in the Talk:University of Pittsburgh, ElKevbo points out that US Dept. Ed and Carnegie Classification classifies Pitt as "public". If you maintain that the proper sole designation is "state-related" ("State-related is the actual legal designation. Period.") shouldn't "public" be deleted from the Lincoln, Penn State, and Temple articles? Thanks Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Quaerens-veritatem. The four universities are all designated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as state-related, although Penn State has an entirely different governance structure than the other three. For instance, of the four, only Penn State's employees are able to participate in the state employees retirement system, more of their board is controlled by state institutions, and at times, historically, it has been designated "public" by the state. So if you imagine a gradient, if one was grading them on a hypothetical private-public scale, Penn State would fall on the scale closer to "public" than the others. But none are either strictly public or private.

As far as what the should be used to describe the others, I would argue "state-related" is the most accurate for all four, and particularly for Pitt and Temple, with Lincoln receiving more state subsidization as a percentage of its budget, and then Penn State being the most public-like. There have been multiple discussions (see the Talk archive for starters) and RfCs over the years, whose outcomes have been "no consensus, which defaults to the existing status quo of "state-related" across the board." (see the result of the RfC about the description of the governance of this university). Status quo from the beginning for the University of Pittsburgh article was "state-related," although some editors have not respected that. So, based on respect of that principle, I leave it to the editors invested in the articles of those other schools and with the best expertise in those universities to advocate for the best descriptor for them or to leave it at the status quo for those.

I, and others, continue to advocate that just because some classifications, like the Carnegie, employ only either-or-buckets and, perhaps most importantly for a wikipedia article, the actual reality of the University of Pittsburgh does not fit the definitions as described in the corresponding wikipedia articles on public and private universities, and the fact that there is no either-or-bucket for a wikipedia article and it makes no sense to force one. These round pegs schools should not be forced into square holes as doing so does not adhere to Wikipedia's ideal of precision and accuracy. I continue to believe readers of Wikipedia are able to explore the distinctive and legal categorization of "state-related" if they so choose. Bottom line, the use either "public" or "private" does not accurately describe the University of Pittsburgh's status or governance, and the wiki-linked and legal term "state-related" provides the most accurate and only legally accurate descriptor. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Thanks CrazyPaco. By the way, text doesn't show up on your talk pa ge when using an iPad, only links, and I had to tap 'edit source' to read the text. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]