User talk:Skotywa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Skotywa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! VanTucky 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

5th Avenue Theatre

You added 5th Avenue Theatre to the List of Landmarks in Seattle. While the theater is part of the Skinner Building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, I'm unaware of the city having any official city landmark status, which is what List of Landmarks in Seattle requires. Neither the theater nor the building are on the list I cited as the main basis for the article. If you have a citation, please provide it and I will stand corrected; otherwise, it should be removed from that article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page about the problem with trying to put together a general list of "significant locations in Seattle". - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lego Modular Houses Theme

On 22 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lego Modular Houses Theme, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Season article naming convention

Re: [1]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner and for disappearing from the discussion. I rather foolishly started the discussion the day before I started my vacation so my internet activity is very spotty for the next week or so. You're quite welcome on my starting the discussion and don't worry about your run in with Grant. I don't think there is anyone that hasn't had a run-in of some variety with Grant, myself included. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Arachnids

Let him. He'll get caught in his spydy web soon enough. Grsz¹¹ 05:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Have they said they are not together? Because they're under the same IP. Grant was caught in a block that was placed on Spydy's IP. But if they have stated they are apart, it changes the issue. Grsz¹¹ 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

I don't know if you saw, but I responded to your request on my talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates

SkotyWA, you agreed that the templates should go back to their exact form at the start of the season. That included not linking to season articles, that included using the correct names of clubs, that included using MLS abbreviations, that included having the automatic berths show their conference seed in the overall standings, etc. I was just speeding up what you already agreed to. Nobody discussed linking the templates to club season articles. That is not done anywhere on the encyclopedia. You think the Premier League article is linked to the Arsenal season page? I truly am sorry if everyone else viewed it as a hostile act, but I understood it to be carrying out the agreement we had in place. If you want to highlight the different teams when they are used in season articles, please rewrite the code so that they use MLS abbreviations. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that when you reverted my removal of inline highlighting, you kept the change to MLS abbreviations. Thank you for being the cool head in this whole thing, and I apologize for what you perceived as a rejection of your olive branch. I thought I was enacting our agreement, but I went too far. For that I apologize. It appears that the only issue currently of contention remains the linking to club season articles or club articles. As I said in template talk, this change was never discussed, and differs from practice (I'm 99.99% sure) literally everywhere else on the encyclopedia. The Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup, Carling Cup, etc. articles don't link to the Arsenal season page. If this change happens, I would be willing to let templates go for a few weeks to see if any organic discussion appears about them (i.e. random editors commenting on their costs/benefits). Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment to Grant on this (for my own future reference) --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary markup

Can you please help me explain to Grsz that the most recent changes I made to the template were only to remove unnecessary coding markup? I didn't change anything remotely controversial. I even changed some piping mistakes. He is just reverting every change I make to anything out of spite. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of spite sounds more like your style Grant. I thought it was removing the the Switch template which makes it able to highlight a team. I saw it didn't and was about to fix it. Chill out, please. Grsz¹¹ 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only asking you to extend the same courtesy to me that you made a big deal out of my not extending to you. I'm simply asking for you not to be a hypocrite. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grsz11

I hope you've noticed that Grsz11 has pushed ahead his change with regard to the SuperLiga berths despite a consensus either way. As Bobblehead pointed out above, consensus is needed to make a change, too. I was hoping that you might, in the interest of fairness, revert his changes, especially since I have not carried out with my intentions to repipe the links in the standings the way I think they should be, and they were before this whole thing started. Can you help keep things on the discussion track, rather than the edit war track? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only consensus that was reached is that it's not as clear cut who makes it into SuperLiga. You even agreed to that, however after agreeing, you still argued to not change anything with the coloring. That didn't make sense to me. I'll revert things I disagree with, and I'm not sure I disagree with this. The thing that's weird right now is we have two colors that mean exactly the same thing. I don't like that. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I never agreed with anything other than continuing the practice used in every other major soccer league in the world. You are not helping to maintain discussion. There was no consensus to change anything, yet Grsz11 changed it. Please maintain order and revert his edits. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand the double standard you are applying? You only respect consensus when you agree with it. You have to have consensus to make a change, not just to remove one. There is no consensus about the SuperLiga places, so they should stay the way they were. Same for the piping of links in the standings. If you have no incentive to listen to anything we say, then what point is there in discussing? This will only lead to more edit warring. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not your monkey. I gave you a few olive branches when no one else would give you the time of day. Don't try to abuse my empathy for your situation. Second, you need to learn the concept of political capital. Your user page says you're majoring in political science, so I have to believe you're familiar with the concept. Basically, you need to pick your battles. The problem I see is that you seem to think it's your duty to fight every single battle with every single person you don't see eye to eye with to the death. In the process you've destroyed your reputation and are currently on the bleeding edge of being banned permanently from Wikipedia. I choose not to revert Grsz11's edit because it's not worth it to me that much. I already said I don't agree with it completely (now we have two colors that mean the same thing), but I choose not to fight over it. Some things I will fight over, but not everything. If I fight over everything, I'm wasting my political capital on petty stuff. If I go out of my way to help someone on the "down and outs" as I did with you, I want to believe that I've gained some political capital with them such that in a later discussion they'll be a little more willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. However that hasn't played out as you've just called my stub article idea both dumb and insane. To which I'm speechless. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that a request for comment on Grant.Alpaugh has been opened and your experiences are welcome. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sixkick, Mjhammerle and myself aren't your monkeys either. If you haven't noticed, those are the only people who have edited the standings, which is being beamed right to your and Morry's pet projects free of charge. Why shouldn't the main MLS page be just like it always was and your templates for the season articles can be however the hell you want? Second, don't talk to me about political capital. You just want to respect consensus when it supports your opinion and reject it when it doesn't. Rather than wait for a fully consistent answer to the issue, you're taking the easy way out and supporting your ally on another issue even though you admit his change is illogical. You seem to have no appreciation for the fact that I've contributed to every major American soccer article for the past 2 years. Now because the Sounders are in town, you suddenly care about MLS, and have decided that everything we did for those years was wrong, and you and Morry and Grsz11 are going to change it. Even worse, you're going to steamroll through your changes, and then we'll talk about them after the fact. I'm not trying to own the articles or anything, but have you given any thought to the experience I bring to the discussion? What about the fact that despite having no interest in the Sounders, I spent hours cleaning up that article, standardizing formats, etc.? I know that in the end we only want the articles to be as good as they can be, but I feel like my perspective is being lost amidst your desire to reinvent the wheel. I apologize for the stream of conscience sort of rant, and any hostility that was present when I started, but maybe its because I'm at the end of my rope or that its 4 AM where I am, but I honestly have lost all desire to fight this out anymore, and would like nothing more than to see how we can work on making the articles better. I think that if we could only follow through with our agreement at the start of the day we might be able to do that. What do you say? If the templates go back to the way they were before this all started, I will drop my objections to templates, and we can go about discussing any proposed changes you might have from there. Hows that? -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

the infamous olive branch (for my own future reference) --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

MLS articles

I'm currently working on the Eastern Conference articles. If you want to start working on the Western Conference that'd be great, but realistically any article you want to create would be a huge help. I'm only doing about one article a day or two (depending on motivation and time I have available), so it's not likely for us to cross paths if you're working on an article and I'm looking for another to create.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things on the schedule portion. I'm currently putting the home team in "team1" and the away team as "team2". I'm also drifting away from using the time option because it makes it easier to copy the games from one season article to the other. I've noticed my speed is picking up as I complete more season articles because I don't have to type out the individual games as much, just have to copy the game from an existing article to the new article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting on the Western Conference teams now and just wondering if you still plan to work on the RSL season article? If you are, I'll just skip it. Granted, it will probably be a few days before I get to RSL, there are four other teams to work on. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm a bit quicker than I was expecting. If you haven't already done so, I'll probably be creating the RSL page tonight. Then I'm going to go back through the season articles and start adding in any pre-season, US Open, CONCACAF information that I can find, so if you want to help with that, I'd be appreciative. but don't worry about it if you're still digging through the real world stuff. Real world is way more important than Wikipedia, so much better to spend time there than here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the template. It's actually pretty freaking brilliant. It would definitely make maintenance much easier than the current format and decreases the size of the schedule while still showing the important information. One change, I'd suggest is instead of having |bg= with the html color codes as the variables for the background color, just have it be |result= with W, L, and T as the variables and just hard code the colors into the template and the W, L, and T determine if it is green(#CCFFCC), red(#FFCCCC), or yellow(#FFFFCC). Much easier to remember W, L, and T then the html. Also, what are your thoughts on including line separator in the template? Maybe not surround the results in a box like they are now, but the ---- break between each game was nice. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the line more and decided it wasn't a good idea. Main reason is situations where there are penalty shootouts. If we put a line in the footballbox template, there would then be a line between the penalty shootout box and the footballbox template. Probably best to just have a <nowiki.----</nowiki> manually put into the templates to create the line. Here's what a LA Galaxy game that ended in a shootout looks like with the collapsible option.

Los Angeles Galaxy v Suwon Bluewings

	v
Penalties
Buddle Patterson	2 – 4	Edu Yang Sang-Min Lee Kil-Hoon Choi Sung-Hwan

This does bring up an idea of incorporating the penalty shootout template in your new collapsible template so that they can be collapsed into the box as well. Otherwise users are going to have to put the shootout results into the score box and that kind of looks wonky in my opinion. Other than that, excellent job.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's it! I'm carding you for the last edit summary (Skotywa  61'). :) Heh. Excellent adjustment on the template. I'm leaning more towards showing the penalties when the template is collapsed. It looks odd to me for a 1-1 tie to show up in a red box instead of yellow. Maybe display it as (2-4 pk) below the game score? If you do display PK above the fold, I wouldn't worry about displaying the pk score down in the penalties section.

I'm also not sure if trying to shorten the location field to just the stadium and city is a good idea. It might work for the bigger cities like Toronto, Seattle, and Washington DC, but just showing the smaller cities, like Carson, Frisco, and Sandy, doesn't really let the reader know where they are unless they hover over the name or follow the link. I'd rather see City, State personally, especially for the smaller cities. Also there really isn't a big difference between a single line and a two line template. It's where each game becomes eight or nine rows that the schedule gets too big. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He shoots! He scores!! (Skotywa 89') Looks good to me after your edits to add the PK score above the fold. I think any other changes are minor and can be done once the template "goes into production" so to speak. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I converted 2009 Chicago Fire season to the collapsible template format. Looks good to me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like you're going through and doing all the updates. Go crazy. ;) Just saw that you did the Seattle and Toronto articles so figured I'd throw you a bone and do the D.C. article, but so we don't overlap again, it's all you man. Nice add, btw. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. The plus side of all these edits is that I now know what stadium and city every team in the MLS plays in.. Okay, maybe that's not a plus side, but it's at least the geek side. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Major League Soccer team locations.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Major League Soccer team locations.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Yeah, I mostly edited via IPs for the last few years, and the last time I had an account was years ago. User:Aftermayintoaug was my old name, but I didn't make all that many edits with it before I lost the password. With the US doing so well in the Confederations Cup and Gold Cup now, I started getting back into editing footy articles, and I decided to create an account because I didn't have the password to the old one and I had long since stopped using the hotmail account it was tied to. Thanks for the welcome to the site though, and I hope we can keep working together in the future.  ;-) AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've filed a suspected sock puppet report on AfterMayAndIntoAugust, whose edit behavior I find suspicious. ← George ^[talk] 09:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An admin performed a check user, and confirmed that AfterMayAndIntoAugust is Grant.Alpaugh. They have been blocked indefinitely. ← George ^[talk] 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Graham / Nationality

Just so you know, the flag next to a players name is dependent on which country the player is from or where the player spent his or her international career. For Taylor Graham, yes, he was born in the United States, but since he made 3 appearances for Puerto Rico national football team his nationality is Puerto Rico. – Michael (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We're gonna have a discussion about this on WT:FOTTY. I've reverted you're edit on Seattle Sounders FC, I suggest you leave the Puerto Rican flag next to Taylor Grahams name until we have this settled. – Michael (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Grant

Sorry for not responding to you, but as you've probably noticed, I'm not very active on Wikipedia any more. Been a long time coming, actually. But good to see that the latest incarnation of Grant got smacked down. In the future, just start a section at WP:SPI like George did, or if you think the evidence is pretty open and shut, just head to WP:AN/I and get the boom dropped on him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy

Thanks for acknowledging my work on Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. I notice you're responsible for the Lego project's only other GA. Since I'm planning to take it to FAC soon, it's at peer review now, here. If you have time, would you mind giving some comments? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of Seattle Sounders FC

I have completed my GA review of Seattle Sounders FC and have listed it as a Pass. However, as it was my first GA Review ever, I have sought out a second opinion for the article. Whoever offers the second opinion will have the final say. Thank you! (If you reply on your talk page, a note on my talk page saying so is greatly appreciated!) MobileSnail 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Result" parameter in collapsible football boxes

Thanks for adding the "result" parm to the Shamrock Rovers/NUFC match on Newcastle United F.C. season 2009–10. That's very nice indeed (and will teach me to read template documentation more carefully ☺) Tonywalton ^Talk 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the location parameter, yes, I'm considering it. However it was around 12:30am my time when I was making those edits, so I decided bedways was bestways! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Have one of these

		The Template Barnstar
		For sterling work on the elegantly collapsible football box Tonywalton Talk 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hooray!

That is my first barnstar. Thanks! I was actually already planning on shooting one over to you for the tirelous effort of getting it to GA status. So when the status is approved, know that it is being awarded for your work on adding the good info, wikifying, and for being an overall badass.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For amazing work on footy-related projects. Seattle Sounders FC, 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, and other articles would not be the same without your contributions.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

re:GA review of Seattle Sounders FC

First, thank you for providing a second opinion on the GA review of this article. However, it looks like User:Mobile Snail may be out of commission as he hasn't made an edit in almost 2 weeks. (maybe a wikibreak?) Since your findings and his were in agreement, would you be willing to go ahead and promote the article in his absence? Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made all the necessary changes. When MobileSnail does return though, could you be the one to explain to him what has been happened? He seems to know you, at least more than me, so it might be better coming from you! Thanks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

re: MLS 2009 transfer links

Which link are you talking about, the List of transfers for the 2009 Major League Soccer season? – Michael (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and put it on the 2009 season page. By the way, Kasperone's link wasn't really similar to mine so that's why I changed it a little and the reason why I called for deletion. – Michael (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredy Montero on loan

Hey Skotywa, you recent reverted someone removing that Montero was on loan from Deportivo Cali, citing the team's website. I'm not the one who removed that (and I'm not convinced that it should be removed either), but I don't know that the team's website is the best place to look. His profile page says "How Acquired: Signed on loan January 21, 2009". I'm not sure that we can infer his current status from a statement about a historical event (being acquired in January). I have no intention of reverting your edit, and I'm confused myself as to his current status (though I joined the discussion here), but just wanted to let you know my thoughts. Cheers! ← George ^[talk] 03:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that he probably isn't on loan any longer (per the FSC broadcast), or that the rumor is being reported as true based on how widespread the rumor is. Personally I just want to see a reliable source one way or the other before I'd change anything, but it's hard to find such sources. Has anyone emailed the Sounders front office to see if they have any comment? ← George ^[talk] 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Does it seem like a familiar face may be back with us? Grsz¹¹ 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested. Grsz¹¹ 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bling. I didn't really even need to take a second look at it, it was quacking the whole time. Then when he started talking about himself, that sealed it. Hopefully he's learned his lesson. Grsz¹¹ 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eliminations from the playoffs

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comment on the main template talk page. Sorry for not starting the discussion before my change. Hopefully no harm-no foul. Anyway, making a few tweaks to the color of the table would convey the information more quickly than superscripts, and would avoid cluttering up the table, at least in my opinion. Also, all you have to do to change the color to make it darker is make one quick change to the color of the highlight, and it would be used for the team's season article. The beauty is, since elimination/qualification is permanent, we only would have to make the change once, rather than constantly updating colors for playoff places, etc. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 02:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that these features were added by Grant.Alpaugh, but I can assure you that if you look at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification, you will see that they were not added to those templates by him, or me. I've been doing a lot of editing to the United States men's national soccer team article lately, and have noticed that when Trinidad and Tobago were mathematically eliminated from the World Cup last week, they were highlighted in red, and when England were mathematically assured of qualification, they were highlighted in green. Then when I was reading about the Red Bulls being the first team mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yesterday, and I noticed that the red had not been added to the 2009 MLS season article, I tried to add it myself. You reverted it, and since then we've been discussing the issue on the main template talk page. I honestly didn't mean to talk about things in a pushy way, and I apologize if that was the impression I gave. I just think this is information that can be easily added to the template that is in use all over the encyclopedia. If you think this is a bad idea, that's fine, but I reject the idea that 1) I have to have edited the 2008 or 2009 articles to have known what they looked like during last season, and 2) that because I made two edits that happened to have been similar to edits made by a blocked user, I am that user. I have only been editing on this account for a short time, that's true, but I have not done anything wrong up to, and including now, and would please, in the nicest possible way, ask that you extend me good faith while we work together to resolve this issue. Thanks. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly respect the idea that Grant.Alpaugh has tainted a lot of the MLS articles, but the idea that anything he proposed is off limits is silly. Grant.Alpaugh resorted to edit warring, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and other tacticts to own articles and push his POV contrary to the accepted norms of the encyclopedia. That is what "tainted," as you rightly say, his reputation with MLS articles, but the idea that because he added red highlighting to the 2008 article, it cannot be added to the 2009 article doesn't ring true. If you disagree, that's fine, and I don't really care enough about the article to fight about it. Like I said above, I happened to read on SoccerByIves that the Red Bulls were eliminated from the playoffs and thought I'd add that to the 2009 MLS article. It was nothing more than a passing issue. When I saw you reverted it, I engaged in discussion about it, and then you basically accused me of sockpuppetry in a roundabout way. Please, extend me a bit of good faith. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this, I'd like to point out that by simply looking at the page we're having our discussion on it is quite clear what Grant.Alpaugh was like when he was involved in MLS articles. Also, I don't think it implies guilt that, upon being accused of being a user, I at least look at the user and talk page articles of the person I've been accused of. I don't think WP:GOODFAITH includes checking the edits of those who disagree with you against the edits of other users that disagreed with you in the past. I have not edit warred on anything related to this discussion, nor do I think I have been guilty of violating WP:CIVIL. Please extend me good faith. Now for real, goodnight. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've brought this issue up at WT:FOOTY, seeking additional input, and WP:WQA, as I think there is a real problem with the way you have accused me of sockpuppetry out of hand like you've done. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 06:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree with the accusations you've made, and can only deny them (with considerable effort), I don't think I should have to submit to a checkuser. It violates my rights to privacy, and would instead like to take you up on your offer that I stay away from MLS articles. For what it's worth, I think you have serious issues with WP:OWNing that article. I just hope you realize that behaving the way you have drives new users away from the project. Since all I did was discuss this, without making any further edits, is there any chance we can still agree to "live and let live?" – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For my own future reference: my attempt to calmly inform him of his duck-like behavior, the final outcome of my WP:WQA inquiry, and finally my comments on his sockpuppet investigation. Waxing philisophical for a moment... It's amusing he came to me wanting to accept my offer after failing in an attempt to aggressively retaliate. After that, things had been set in motion (Grsz11 started the sock puppet investigation) that could not be reversed. It's easy to want to "live and let live" when you have no other option (and even that may not be an option anymore). It's a test of character to do so when you still believe you can exercise power over someone else. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC task force

Hi, I wanted to notify you that I've created a proposal to create a Seattle Sounders FC task force at WikiProject Football. As someone who has edited articles in the space, I thought you might be interested. If so, you can add your name to the list of supporters here. Cheers. ← George ^talk 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the Seattle Sounders FC task force. It can be found here. Our first order of business is to tag all of the Seattle-related articles with WikiProject Football's {{football}} banner (most already have it), and add a Seattle importance rating to it. This be done by adding a Seattle=(importance) parameter to the banner, where (importance) is one of Top, High, Mid, or Low. ← George ^talk 16:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Have one of these

Thanks Skotywa! Look forward to collaborating with you all on these articles. Cheers. ← George ^talk 09:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Map help request?

Hi Skotywa! I noticed you were the one who's responsible for the current version of the MLS team alignment map, and was wondering if you could help with the team map on the WPS article. (I've never edited/uploaded images before and am not sure how, and the Wikimedia help pages haven't made much sense to me.) I wrote on the user talk page of the guy who created the current version of the WPS map, but have never gotten a response. You think you could make the changes needed? CyMoahk (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Though the dot for STL could be moved southeast a bit further ;-) Also, if you could put dots for Atlanta and Philadelphia as well, with the appropriate state highlights, that would be highly appreciated as well! ....Actually, is it easy to create an entirely new file/name for the image? B/c adding ATL & PHI would make it the 2010 configuration, as opposed to the 2009. Someone updated this with links for ATL & PHI, so that's why I was hoping someone could update the background image accordingly, because I am woefully inadequate with the skills required. ^.^' CyMoahk (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome! Thank you so much! =-) CyMoahk (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

5th Avenue--please read.

I'm sorry for re-posting this, but I'm not used to how to contact editors on Wikipedia, and I felt it was pretty important to get this to you in reply to your message about editing the 5th Avenue entry.

Hello there:

While I also appreciate your dedication to both Wikipedia and The 5th, I'm surprised to find this reaction to my most recent edits, which I don't believe are in any way "peacock" related. Yes, I'm the PR guy employed by the theatre, but the following edits are in no way related to anything but a factual update: shows produced annually are NOT 4-7, but are 6-7. Shows that have gone on to Broadway include Shrek (note that I didn't add Memphis as that was a co-production, nor Catch Me which hasn't yet secured a Broadway house.) We are a non-profit, verifiable by our website, our charter, and multiple other pieces of documentation; to say that we are not or that we make our money without funding is incorrect, despite the outdated copy of the PSBJ that is cited. (It's not only incorrect, it's potentially libelous when you consider that it can have a direct effect on our fundraising efforts.)

Our new marquee is going up on December 3 of this year; therefore the historical information about us not being able to get a marquee up is demonstrably false.

As to moving locally produced shows ahead of national tours, a look at our show archives located here: http://www.5thavenue.org/about/showarchives.aspx reveals that certainly for the last few years national tours have been the minority of productions presented by The 5th Avenue.

While you're correct in assuming that as the Theatre's PR manager I can't say that I have an unbiased position, when it comes to matter of fact--verifiable via the website of the organization itself, members of the media and by internal documents easily available to me--I clearly have access to information that shows that the Wiki entry as it currently stands is inaccurate. (As to my bonafides outside of being a PR Manager: I was also a theatre journalist from 1995 to 2001, then again from 2005-2009, writing for Seattle Weekly, Seattle Magazine, City Arts, and various other local publications--please feel free to google the Weekly's site for "Longenbaugh on Theatre," for example, to find the 100+ articles I wrote for that paper in the last couple of years.)

The one item that you mention in your note, the figure of 61,000 as opposed to 55,000, was given to me by our Educational Department. If you would like, I'd be happy to have them forward you this information directly so you can see that this is externally verifiable.

Please look over the notes above and reconsider allowing my changes. I have been personally charged as part of my job by the Artistic Director of The 5th Avenue, David Armstrong, to help keep Wikipedia current and factually accurate. The entry as it stands right now is neither, and therefore is not fulfilling the stated purpose of Wikipedia, nor your own stated intention of creating a useful entry.

If you'd like to contact me directly, feel free to do so at jlongenbaugh@5thavenue.org, or at (206) 625-1418. But in any case, let's resolve this please; I would prefer not to ask for a reassessment of this article based upon its multiple examples of factual inaccuracy.

Thanks,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5thAvenuePRguy (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: to help make my point (which is that whether or not I'm the PR Manager, this article is inaccurate, and that my edits are about accuracy, not peacocking): please check out this link:

http://www.5thavenue.org/about/

You'll see that the information has been corrected to 61,000 instead of 55,000 people served by The Theatre.

I'm assuming that was your original source for your article. If you should need independent verification of this number or any of the other information that I assure you is accurate, please contact me at the e-mail above.

My job as PR Manager is not always to "sell" the theatre--often I'm simply charged with getting accurate information out about who we are and what we do. That's what I'm trying to do here--and no disrespect, but my sources on these issues are more immediate, and clearly more accurate, than yours.

Thanks,

John

Sounders FA - Thanks for the note

Hey, just wanted to say thank you for the courteous note you left me about the flag removal on the Sounders page. That was a real classy move by you, and I appreciate it. I hope I didn't come off as an ass during that conversation about the flags, because that wasn't my intention at all. I try to be a positive and useful contributor on all US soccer articles, and want to see them grow and be useful articles for wiki readers. You are doing an awesome job on the Sounders article. Cheers, --JonBroxton (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC!

Hi Skotywa, I noticed that you've submitted your first nomination for Featured article. It's always nice to see new nominators! I hope that you enjoy the process. In reading through your FAC today, I was pleased to see that you are handling the reviewer issues very promptly. Please don't be discouraged by the opposes - reviewers want the same thing you do, an excellent article. I learned so much in my first few FACs that the ones after that were a lot easier to write. Hopefully you'll feel the same way :) Best of luck to you and your article, and I hope we see you at FAC many times in the future. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Emerald City Cup

Yesterday, I started creating a page for the Emerald City Cup which will be played before the start of the season and I also started the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season but I am not assigned to this yet, how can you become assigned.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinefcb (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags in squad lists

The thread is in danger of drying up and being archived without any firm proposal being put in place. Should we let it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi - nice to be asked to help, but at present I have almost no time to spend at Wikipedia. :( Best of luck with the article. 4u1e (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job!

		Football (soccer) barnstar
		For getting the Seattle Sounders FC article promoted to featured article status, and for your outstanding work and diligence during both FAC discussions, I hereby award you the Football Barnstar! ← George talk 05:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just echoing the above. I noticed the improvements to the article a couple of weeks ago, just never got around to commenting on them. Nice job. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another ditto. Nice work. Just to continue the love fest, we can't forget about Bobblehead! And (it being the New Year and all):

Cptnono (talk) has given you a toast with champagne, for Here's to the first featured article! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast with champagne! Enjoy!

Spread the goodness of with champagne by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=#005594|bg=#5D9731|image=Murganheira.jpg|article=a toast|item=with champagne }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cptnono (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

I've made a new proposal at WT:FOOTY to restrict use of flags to mean sporting nationality and only sporting nationality - i.e. to use them to signify international representation. This has the added benefit of being easy to source, and removes the current ambiguity in the meaning of the flag - no more questions as to whether the flag by a player signifies a birthplace, an ethnicity, an adopted nationality or an international cap. Knepflerle (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sounders FC up for FA review

Thanks for the heads up! When I have time I'm going to read though the article top to bottom, identifying or fixing any issues I see. Then I'll weigh in on the FAC discussion. Cheers. ← George ^talk 08:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. At first I was lke "What the hell? I just finished everything! Who is this person?" It turns out it was the person who makes the decisions :) . I'm pretty confident in Qwest but a couple more things came up. They are minor but we are going for best of the best so another round of reviews on both articles is just fine with me (assuming they don't get stopped on lack of reviewers). I'm going to go through Sounders again and make any minor changes to formating but I'll keep you in the loop. I don't know if I will find anything but I want it to be perfect. I saw that you addressed some of the random stuff I brought up so I asusme everything will be just fine.

Also, do you know off the top of your head how to format the week-by-week table seen at MLS '09? It needs to be in the MLS '10 article.

Bring on 2010. Looking forward to March, 25!Cptnono (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I just copy and pasted a couple things in and removed the redirect a few weeks ago to start it off.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to get so much crap for that Josh Brown line! Easy mistake to make when you are toying with multiple sources, articles, and beers at the same time. Thanks for the feedback on the awkward sentences. I'll fiddle with them and see what happens.Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo. Would you mind taking a look at the Layout and construction seciton of Qwest? I found a series of sources I couldn't ignore even though it is so far along in the FaC process. Any quick thoughts? Also, let me know if you need anything else with SFC. I tried makingsome changes (one of them was wrong!) but it has really come along.Cptnono (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but I'm just too busy right now to help with more copyedits. If you ever see the "open for business" sign at the top of my page, however, please feel free to ask again! Good luck with the article. Scartol • Tok 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You (wikilink to some cussing here)! I saw that copyright tag sometime ago and spaced it completely. Excellent call on the State of Football image. Qwest is in PR but has had better luck with a couple guys doing minor copyedits (I have no idea where one of them came from but he is awesome). Schmid is languishing at requests for feedback. As a fan, click on some of those sources since I expect him to bring up some good talent and play them hard in CONCACAF.Cptnono (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What's her name

The teacher in Malcolm in the Middle needed some quick work so I threw that in to remind myself. I actually did get to it. I only realized a month or so ago how useful user pages are!Cptnono (talk)

I made a request this afternoon. Thanks for the nudge!Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Many thanks for your very mature reaction to my post on the Sounders page and your subsequent apology. Consider it accepted, and I'm moving on with absolutely no hard feelings. I'm sorry if I came across as uneccesarily angry too. Not that you need to know anything about me and my life, but I was in pain having had my wisdom teeth out the day before, and I was having a very bad day, which might explain things slightly! I know that we both just want to make all the American soccer articles as good as they can be; we'll disagree on how that is achieved, of course, but the ultimate goal is the same. So, thanks again and keep up your excellent work :) --JonBroxton (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Players

Heh... looks like we were posting simultaneously! --JonBroxton (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY showcase

I've added it now :)

Any news on the collapsible boxes? WFCforLife (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've yet to read his comments on your talk page- I shall do so now. To be fair, while I was disappointed that he began the discussion with a mention of TfD, he has done the right thing by initiating discussion. Anyway, I'm going to post a short notification on the main MOS page, pointing them towards the discussion at WP:ACCESS. Hopefully a few uninvolved editors will clarify the purpose of the guideline, and we can take things from there. WFCforLife (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To fully answer your question about MOS:COLLAPSE, I agree with the rationale behind your proposal. There shouldn't be a ban on these, and the wording should be changed to reflect that. Although at the same time we should ensure that important information is accessible somehow.

This FAC is one that I'm following very closely. Now, the way that I use the template, the only things that are hidden are the identities of individual goalscorers, the attendance, and the referee's name. If similar match-detail requirements were applied to football/soccer season articles, as are being applied to basketball, we would probably mention every goalscorer and red card anyway. If these are mentioned, and attendance is visible, then these collapsible boxes are supplimentary, and therefore should be allowed. WFCforLife (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FC

We are all fans and this is a sports article. It sucks that someone has to go reverting over something that has been discussed in depth. I probably shouldn't have been so quick to threaten edit warring on my end. Good call on the message.Cptnono (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Season articles

Heh. Sorry. I was home sick with the flu today and got on a roll. Hopefully I didn't make too many errors in my speed/fever. :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all yours. My eyes are a bit cross-eyed at the moment. Going to give them a rest for the evening. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I really started just piecing together bits towards the end so sourcing and grammar need work ASAP. I also failed to get the last month or so in. Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Choco chip cookie

For helping the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season article and helping me learn about Wikipedia, I hereby award you this cookie! Antoinefcb 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for support and nominating Seattle Sounders FC supporters for a DYK.Sid1977 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

GA review

I have reviewed the article 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final that you submitted for GA nomination. Comments can be found here. Cheers, -- BigDom 09:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just left one final comment. Thanks, -- BigDom 18:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article now meets all of the GA criteria so I have passed it with pleasure. Good luck getting it to FA in the future. Let me know if you have any other articles that you would like reviewing for GA and I'll gladly take a look. Cheers, -- BigDom 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Sounders FC players

Birmingham, Bradford and Gillingham are examples of lists that do split players by appearances, but include every player on one of the lists. In these cases, the only reason for the split is down to the length- all of the players are notable and worthy of listing somewhere.

As for updating, I'd say its important to update after the first game of the season, the last game of the season, after every international match, and when a player makes his debut. Obviously there'd be no harm in doing it more often, but if the "as of" date is accurate it doesn't matter too much. As a guide for Watford, after this week's internationals I don't plan on updating again until Don Cowie reaches 50 appearances, and he's currently on about 40. WFCforLife (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)