User talk:Seattle Skier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Space Needle002.jpg
Thunderbird on Totem Pole.jpg

Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to leave me a message, use the [+] button above to start a new section. I prefer to reply here to keep conversations together in one place, so please watchlist this page. I will also try to leave a brief note on your talk page, informing you that I have replied. Also, please realize that I am occasionally out of town, in the mountains and away from internet access for days at a time, so response may sometimes be very slow. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience that may cause.

WP Volcanoes[edit]

Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project (and its founder...), this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, ResMar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your constructive criticism. I'm sorry for being impolite in my edit summary. I concede the point about high latitude pressure. Precipitation of dry ice snow still seems unlikely, but, on reflection, CO2 crystals may sometimes form at the top of the troposphere and fall to ground. However, looking at the sublimation curve for CO2, it seems temperatures of 130K are required to compensate for the low partial pressure of CO2. On the other hand, the polar night may allow for radiative cooling, which would not occur in a test freezer with very cold air but somewhat warm walls. Anthony717 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Roger Federer in 2009[edit]

What do you thank about this? The intro to the article will be place under 2009 to his main page!BLUEDOGTN 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kinetic Architecture[edit]

Dear Mr. Skier,

I have a concern for the fact that you have been erasing my concept on Kinetic Architecture, a concept that I created in since 1989 privately and I really appreciate it if you keep my definition as I found your today´s text adding part of my definition, so, I undertand you are a professional on Glaciars and I feel upset for your discussion comments without asking me privately. I created the design concept in spanish language in 1989 as "Arquitectura Cinética" and kept it privately like that until technology provided more adaptable materials to build structures in that way. But also I incorporated and created a tool that I called MDS ( Multidirectional Displacement of Structure ) to make possible the transformation of the building inside and outside and since 2004 I ´ve been on the design of an experimental project I called: The Arkinetic House.

So, please understand that I did created the design concept and wanna you to keep my statement at the definition of Kinetic Architecture to permitt its promotion around the globe. It is not making any damage to anyone who are applying the concept, it is just an Historical information that might help others to keep going into better use of the concept.

Best regards,

JOSE LEONIDAS MEJIA Architect Lic. Col. 1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Glacier volcano[edit]

I seen your deletion of the Franklin Glacier complex in Template:Cascade volcanoes. Because if this, I have restored it for several reasons. Just because the volcano has a lower elevation of other volcanoes in Cascade volcano template does not mean it is not a major volcano. The Franklin complex is 20 km (12 mi) wide and 6 km (3.7 mi) long.[1] This indicates Franklin is larger than Rainier, St. Helens, Meager, Garibaldi, and many others in the template. You are also incorrect about Franklin being a small outcrop of volcanic rock during one of our last discussions about it. As far the type of volcanic feature it represents, it is more likely a large caldera complex similar to Silverthrone.[2] If you have a problem with Franklin being a major volcanic complex, deal with it. I doubt there are sources that state Franklin as a small volcanic complex because of its size. Also, your mention about the large gap between Franklin and Meager is quite normal in the Cascade Arc. Similar gaps exist elsewhere thoughout the Cascade Arc, and the area between Silverthrone and Meager is largely unexplored. More about this discussion can be found on the template's talk page. BT (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Tusk, the thing that you don't seem to understand is that there are many such caldera complexes in WA, OR, and CA portions of the Cascades, they are old and eroded and buried just like Franklin Glacier complex. If we called all of them "major" and added them to the template, it would be ridiculous, the template would be huge, and filled with a bunch of obscure unknown volcanoes. There is not a single volcanologist or WP:RS that would ever claim that Franklin Glacier complex is a "major Cascade volcano", can you find one? It's time for you to stop your tendentious editing on matters related to the inclusion of Silverthrone and Franklin in the Cascades. Even the Geological Survey of Canada says this about Silverthrone: "Its affinity is unclear because it has been only minimally studied." [3] and this about Franklin: "Its tectonic affinity is unclear because it has been only minimally studied." [4] In each sentence, "Its affinity" refers to whether it is part of the Garibaldi Belt and caused by the present Cascadia Subduction Zone or not. That's it, they don't know the answer yet. So neither of those really belong in the template about Cascade volcanoes at all, or they should be italicized and footnoted if included. --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I would have to disagree that Silverthrone and Franklin should be deleted from the Cascade volcanoes template because all the geologic topics I have seen classify Silverthrone and Franklin as either part of the Garibaldi and Pemberton belts. Nothing else. The Silverthrone complex is actually not old in geologic terms. The oldest rocks known are at least a million years old, and volcanic activity has occurred there as recently as 1,000 years ago. Franklin may be old, sure, but if you look at dates of known eruptions, two distent volcanic episodes have occurred at it, both separated by at least five million years. There is more about this on my talk page. BT (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I would stop by to show you this website created by Catherine Hickson. On page 77 there is a map of volcanoes in British Columbia, Yukon and the Alaska Panhandle that has legends for every volcano. Black squares indicate volcanic complexes between 23-2 million years old, gray stars indicate large volcanic complexes, black triangles indicate cinder cones or small shield volcanoes, and gray circles indicate the Neogene Chilcotin basalts. On that image it shows Silverthrone, Franklin, Meager, Cayley, Garibaldi and Baker as large volcanic complexes with their names labeled, which is commonly synonymous with major volcanoes. And if you look on page 58 on the same website, there is a Geological Survey of Canada image of the Cascade Arc also made by Catherine Hickson that includes Silverthrone and Franklin.
I'm also a bit stund with some of your resources mentioned on my talk page after taking a closer look at them. The GSC does not consider the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt to extend to Glacier Peak or any other Cascade volcano across the border. The Watts Point volcanic centre near Howe Sound is considerd to be the southernmost zone of the Garibaldi Belt as discribed here or here. Thus, Garibaldi Volcanic Belt is a term for the Canadian portion of the Cascade Arc. The GSC website makes that clear as well, which shows a map of it here. Also note it includes Silverthrone and Franklin. The GSC pages for Silverthrone and Franklin may say "its tectonic affinity is unclear because it has been only minimally studied", but it also says "It is considered to be part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, although it also lies on the overlapping trend of the much older Pemberton Volcanic Belt (which formed as a result of subduction of the now-vanished Farallon plate)." As a Canadian, I have always stuck with Silverthrone and Franklin being part of the GVB and CVA for this reason and it's something I won't give up. BT (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note I added more notes on my user page to help avoid stuff like your annoying notes you added on my talk page in February and so on. Before our discussion in February I added the {{User DGAF}} user box on my user page. I only remain civil with users that I truely get along with and my apologies to you were actually a bunch of sarcasm. The main WP stuff I follow and get along with are ignoring all rules and being bold. I am not dealing with nonsense anymore and I actually have been against your sense of view since 2007. So there is my warning. Also, the stuff you mentioned about the Cascade volcano list seems to be a bunch of conflict of interest. I do not care if my Canadian volcanism interest can be problematic, or if the Canadian portion of the Cascade Arc is very small and insignificant compared to the American partion of the arc. In fact, I did not even create the Cascade volcano list, nor did I greatly expand it. See the history for proof. The Milbanke Sound Group on the central BC Coast might be a product of Cascadia subduction as well.

Also, if you or someone else has a problem with the list or whatever else they should be WP:BOLD and fix it. Doing nothing won't solve the problem. I only edit whatever I feel like editing and I do not care if there is more information about Canadian volcanism than American volcanism. I told this to another American user during a discussion. Before I started making large contributions to Canadian volcanism topics on Wikipedia, American volcanism had a broader scope than Canadian volcanism. My main area of interest on Wikipedia is expanding and creating articles related to Canadian volcanism. If people want to step up and add more information to American volcanism articles they will do so. But I am not really the one to do that, meaning my area of interest ends at the border. Everyone has their own area of interest. Volcanoguy 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey Vonn in 2010[edit]

Hello Seattle Skier, I just created this article, so go and tell me what you think of it?BLUEDOGTN 20:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Seattle Skier,

You may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What's up[edit]

You haven't been terribly active with the volcano project recently, but I just stopped by to say that you might be interested in the progress I'm making on Mauna Kea. ResMar 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Herrera[edit]

Sorry...didn't recognize that you gave a reason and that it was actually vandalism.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Baja California[edit]

In this edit summary you asked if the clean-up was over-zealous. No, it wasn't. Disambiguation on Wikipedia tries to be very straightforward: if the linked article indicates the ambiguity, we include it; if the linked article doesn't indicate the ambiguity, we don't. External references or other info might be useful, but they should be used to add the appropriate information to the article space (not to the disambiguation pages), where the usual mechanisms of review and oversight would be applied. Once the information is in the article, then the topics would be added to the dab pages. This helps reduce surprise for the readers (who might otherwise land at a page from a disambiguation and find no information on the topic they were searching) and in theory reduces problems for the editors, by making the criteria easy to apply. I hope this explanation helps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your explanation makes little sense in this particular case. Instead of improving the Baja California article by adding info about the very standard and universally-used abbreviation "BC" or "B.C.", you chose to instead delete legitimate and correct info from the dab page BC. Your reversion of my edit (i.e. your removal of Baja California from BC) does not appear to improve the encyclopedia in any way-- that should be your goal, not following some contrived "philosophy" about disambiguation pages. Overall, Wikipedia is better and more useful if Baja California is included on BC. I hope you will see clear the need to add info to Baja California instead of deleting it from BC, and I hope that you will eventually revert your own reversion on BC. You're an admin, I have high expectations of you. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you add the information about the abbreviation to Baja, California? If it is very standard and universally-used, it would make sense to cover it encyclopedically, and then everything else Just Works. You may have a misunderstanding of adminship -- it's a janitorial position. The mop helps us make sure everything Just Works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Since I've been an admin myself for over 3 and 1/2 years, I have absolutely no misunderstanding of adminship. Sometimes, janitorial efforts are best devoted to adding info to Wikipedia instead of deleting it. I would still prefer that you add the info to Baja California (no comma), since you are the one who chose to unnecessarily delete info from BC. That would "make sure everything Just Works" the way it should.
I'm not trying to be difficult and argumentative with you -- I just get annoyed when various well-intentioned "cleanup" efforts around Wikipedia end up deleting large amounts of legitimate and useful info, instead of trying to retain the info while finding sources instead. Cleanup should only get rid of garbage, not undermine any positive contributions by other editors, otherwise it is counter-productive and wastes everyone's time. As our discussion here is already starting to do. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But I am unfamiliar with the use of "BC" for "Baja, California", so it makes no sense for me to add it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Christl Cranz[edit]

Hi Seattle Skier,

I noticed you've been turning some of my contributions into proper English (thanks by the way).

Now I just discovered the "English version" of a wiki about the most successful Alpine Ski World Champion ever, and I think this would deserve some improvement as well, to me it sounds quite German translated word by word into English - would be great if you could find some time to do so; it's on

--No Kangaroos in Austria (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cascade volcanoes[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Cascade volcanoes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —hike395 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Seattle Skier,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia growth graphs[edit]

The graphical views of main wikipedia sizes are really interesting (TopTenWikipediasGraph.png and PercentWikipediasGraph.png). Are you able to update them? I would do it myself, but without the source data file, I will spend time... Borvan53 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


Hello Seattle Skier,

I would like know if you can update File:TopTenWikipediasGraph.png. I would like to use it in w:fr:Wikipedia:Statistiques, but it's very old.


--Juanes852 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

PS excuse me for my bad english, but I'm a French contributor


Hello Seattle Skier. I'm a user at the Dutch Wikipedia and I was writing the page Lijst van hoogste gebouwen van Seattle (that's Dutch for "List of talles buildings in Seattle") at the Dutch Wikipedia. Of all the buildings I could find a picture at Commons or Flickr, but from two (This one, and this one) I couldn't. So, if you've time I would appreciate if you can make a picture from those buildings. Supercarwaar (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

And if you've time to photograph these buildings, maybe you can photograph this one also, because there are only pictures available of the time when it was constructed. - Supercarwaar (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2015[edit]

Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
In the Seattle area? You are invited to the Seattle Wiknic 2015 on Sunday, July 5, 2015, 11am to 2pm at the Washington Park Arboretum, in the meadow area to the south of the Graham Visitors Center, approximately at 47°38′15″N 122°17′38″W / 47.637435°N 122.293986°W / 47.637435; -122.293986. Click here for more details!
Wiknic logo.svg

Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle[edit]

Official Seal of Seattle.jpg
In the Seattle area? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help. Come to our first Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle on July 27, 2015, 6pm to 9pm, at Café Allegro
Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
Yours, Peaceray
To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unraveling the Coriolis effect[edit]

Hi Seattle Skier. I have tried my best to come to grips with your understanding of the Coriolis Effect. I have also re-read all the texts at my disposal on the subject. The result is that several things bother me about your exposition of the Coriolis Effect. Firstly you jump from one frame of reference to the other (i.e. from the “rotating” frame of reference to the “stationary”, and vice versa) without warning, or explaining why the one takes precedence over the other in one circumstance and not the other. Obviously when discussing the Coriolis effect both must be described side by side, equally weighted, to explain how the one is represented in the other frame of reference. To me all instances of the Coriolis Effect are simple examples of uncomplicated Newtonian motion when seen by the “stationary observer”, who can then apply some simple geometry to derive what that motion will look like from the rotating individual’s point of view. Things are a little bit more complicated for the person on the rotating platform. If that person assumes that when an object moves from A to B it should, according to Newton’s Laws, follow a straight line unless acted on by an external force. Thus when an object in his world follows a curved trajectory it must be acted upon by a force which he calculates can be derived from the formula .

Object moving frictionlessly over the surface of a very shallow parabolic dish. The object has been released in such a way that it follows an elliptical trajectory.
Left: The inertial point of view.
Right: The co-rotating point of view.

But now consider the diagram which appears in the Coriolis Effect article of an object moving frictionlessly over the surface of a very shallow parabolic dish. The object has been released in such a way that it follows an elliptical trajectory. If the rotating person applies the formula to the motion of this object (as seen from his perspective), assuming that it would be moving in a straight line were it not for the “Coriolis Force”, derived from his formula, he would obtain the wrong result for the motion he sees. He would need to know what a “stationary” person sees: portions of an elliptical trajectory, and apply the Coriolis formula to that motion to explain what he sees. Without that knowledge, to which he might not be privy, the motion seems inexplicable, and not governed by the Coriolis formula. (I know that you will maintain that the Coriolis formula is still in force, but in order to establish that, you have to move your frame of reference, in which case it is probably easier to use simple geometry to predict the object’s motion across the rotating frame of reference, which, if I have understood you correctly, ensures that it is no longer an instance of the Coriolis effect.)

You mention that when in the formula is zero then the Coriolis Force must be zero as well, and the phenomenon cannot be stated to be an instance of the Coriolis Effect (because it is the force that defines the Coriolis effect). But consider the following situation. An object moves in a straight line at uniform speed right across a rotating turntable, from one rim to the other. It does not cross the center point of the turntable. The velocity of the object is adjusted so that it crosses the rim (onto the turntable) at the same point as where it leaves the turntable a short while later. The track of the object on the turntable forms a loop. At the point on the loop nearest the center of the turntable the object is, for an instant, stationary with respect to the turntable – its velocity is exactly the same as the angular velocity at that point on the turntable. Thus, for that instant in time, is zero, and the Coriolis Force is zero. So, for a moment the Coriolis effect is suspended, which sound very much like the contention that when a missile is shot vertically upwards and its velocity slows to zero at the apex of its flight, the force of gravity acting on it is zero.

I hope you understand my concerns, which I, furthermore, hope are not due to unjustified prejudices. Cruithne9 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied on both User talk:Cruithne9 and Talk:3753 Cruithne, where the prior discussion on this topic had occurred. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to copy the discussion of the Coriolis effect on to the Coriolis Effect Talk page[edit]

I would like your permission to copy our discussion of the Coriolis Effect on to the Talk page of the Coriolis Effect article, as someone needs to take note of your comments and edit the article accordingly. As it stands it leads inevitably to the types of misconceptions and misunderstanding I express in my discussion with you. What do you think? Cruithne9 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to copy our discussion elsewhere (it's already on 2 separate talk pages in nearly its entirely), and there is really no normal precedent on Wikipedia for doing that type of copying. I've just deleted the section on Distant Stars in the Coriolis effect article, as the Coriolis term vanishes entirely and there is only a centripetal term, so the apparent motion of distant stars really has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect as that term is commonly understood. That was the most confusing and unnecessary section. The rest of the article seems OK at a quick glance through, although I didn't read every single bit now. The simple examples and demos which are solvable in both the inertial and rotating frames should be readily recognizable as such. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that what is in the "Coriolis Effect" article does describe the phenomenon with adequate illustrations and formulas, but in the light of our discussion it is deficient in what it leaves out, in terms of what you CANNOT apply the term to. In science, if you coin a term such as "oxidation" then that definition applies to ALL instances where a chemical substance loses an electron to another substance. Similarly in physics: "gravity" is applied to ALL bodies with mass (whether it be a kilogram bag of flour, a mountain, or a galaxy), as well as in ALL instances of acceleration. "Evolution" has shaped and affects ALL living organisms. The "Coriolis Effect" seems, from what you have written to me, to be an exception. That is what confused me, and is not mentioned in the Coriolis Effect article or in any of the textbooks on physics and meteorology that I have consulted. I have formatted our discussion to make it easy for someone to follow our exchanges, and then highlighted in red your last "Key points to remember to unravel and understand the Coriolis effect". Hopefully someone will take note of that and adjust the text accordingly. Cruithne9 (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lab at the UW Research Commons[edit]

WikiLab Logo.svg
What: Wikipedia Lab
When: Weekly on Mondays, starting 10/5/2015 through 11/30/2015, 4:30pm-6:30pm
Who: UW students, faculty, and staff; Wikimedians; Seattle community members
Where: UW Research Commons
Focus: Women and the Sciences in October and Pacific Northwest in November; weekly topics
Wikipedia Lab at the UW Libraries Research Commons brings together local Wikipedia experts with University of Washington subject specialists and UW community members to learn about editing Wikipedia. Come contribute vital, local, and corrective content to the world's largest online encyclopedia. Come as you are with questions, ideas, or content knowledge to share!

The Wikipedia Lab will run weekly, every Monday, during fall quarter. The Lab has two thematic focuses: Women in the Sciences and the Pacific Northwest. Each week will feature a special collections librarian content specialist and Wikipedian editors. Sponsored by the UW Libraries & Wikimedians User Group

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle[edit]

Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle, January 16, 2016
In the Seattle area?

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia's 15th anniversary at the
Wikipedia 15 meetup in Seattle on Saturday, January 16, 2016, 12:15pm to 5pm at the University of Washington Communications building, Room 126.

12:15 Potluck lunch
 1:00 Lightning talks and presentations

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia15 Animated Mark - English.gif

Seattle Wiknic 2016[edit]

Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
In the Seattle area? You are invited to the Seattle Wiknic 2016 on Saturday, July 16, 2016, noon to 3pm at the Washington Park Arboretum, in the meadow area to the south of the Graham Visitors Center, approximately at 47°38′15″N 122°17′38″W / 47.637435°N 122.293986°W / 47.637435; -122.293986. Click here for more details!
Wiknic logo.svg

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Seattle Skier. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)