User talk:Skotywa

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

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)

Reply to your comments...

Hello, Skotywa. You have new messages at Mobile Snail's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)