User talk:Skotywa/Archive 2

Match lineup images

I actually use a free program called Inkscape to create the images. Unfortunately, I can't offer you any sort of tutorial for the program as I basically learned to use it by trial-and-error. My only tip would be to save a pre-existing line-up image to your computer and play around with it. – PeeJay 09:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seattle Sounders FC Supporter Groups

Thanks for the update. I can't wait to see it. – Sid1977Sid1977 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seattle Sounders FC supporters

On 5 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seattle Sounders FC supporters, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cup Final peer review

Hmm, I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but if I do I'll be sure to let you know. One question - how did the Sounders split up the $100k prize? Wasn't it divided among the players? I can't remember the details, and have no clue how D.C. United distributed theirs. ← George ^talk 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I suspect they split the prize among all the players on the team, and that's why it was notable that they included Forrest in the split, because he was no longer on the roster. But I'll see if I can find something to support that. Cheers. ← George ^talk 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stateoffootballart derivative.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stateoffootballart derivative.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Skotywa for your great lego-and-Seattle contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stateoffootballart derivative.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stateoffootballart derivative.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Qwest

It is damn close if not already ready. I have made a couple recent changes and several editors have done some spot checks. I will more than likely go over it a few more times then nominate it again. Please feel free to adjust it if you see anything. And nice work on the recent GA!Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you know I was joking around with the "you expletive" comment awhile back! Someone brought up a concern with the State of Football image again at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive2 so I removed it again. I like it and think it conveys the info much better than the text so we'll see if tinkering with the FAR can get it back in. Don't know if you caught the PDX match but it was interesting. Hopefully no strike so we can see the guys rip it up in the regular season.Cptnono (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hopefully it will be a favorable response.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. I can retire from Wikipedia now! (not really). So [1] has a great '09 review. We might need to consider blowing out most of '09 since so much of it was preliminary outline work. Not sure though. Cptnono (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL and agreed! I actually gave the first scarf one (nice work making it again) to Antoine for his effort. He screws up but he is new and has been busting his ass (er... fingers since it is online?) here and there. I've been watching George for another reason to come up to give him one. I almost gave him one for starting the task force but am not sure if it is too late or would come across only as a "thank you". Maybe I am putting too much thought into it :) Saturday @ 7:30! Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Milk is god for White Russians when you don't have any cream in the fridge or a tasty mocha.Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually stopped myself from using it on other articles a couple times just in case. It comes across professional and it is used on some other articles. Would have to look into it more or take it to the RS noticeboard to see what people think. Even if it can't be used, the summary isn't bad to work off of.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh

Thanks for the kind words. I hope that I can prove your faith in me was not misplaced. With regards to the 2010 Major League Soccer season article, are you still heavily involved there, because there are some slight changes I would like to discuss. Thanks again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

_{For my own future reference: my comment in favor of the unblock and my comment on Grant's talk page.}

Links to club articles in league table

I really and truly appreciate your attempts to work with me on a compromise. I can't tell you enough how happy that makes me. That said, I left something on WT:FOOTY that hopefully will get a comment or two (btw, I don't know if you watch WT:FOOTY, but you really should). In the interest of including as many people as possible, would you be willing to move (or at least copy) the gist of your comment into the article talk page? I would like to wait a bit longer before deciding that pretty much nobody else cares and we take this on ourselves. Thanks again, and have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to go along with consensus, but if you think there are other things that can be done to improve the table (and I agree with you) I'd like to work with you to that end. I think all four of the points you raised could be improved upon if you're willing to work with me on them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If my tone offends you, please know that I don't intend it to. Can you please show me where you feel I've made ad hominem or misdirecting arguments so that I can eliminate them in the future? I've done quite a bit of competitive speaking/debating, and I intend to go to law school in the next year, so if I'm overly argumentative then I honestly apologize. I make two fundamental assumptions: the position I hold is correct (otherwise I wouldn't hold it, after all) and that you have good reasons for holding your position. Therefore, I must assume that one of those reasons is that I'm privy to information that you are not. As you just demonstrated, sometimes it is the case that I'm not privy to information that you are, and if that's the case, then you're probably correct. That is to say I don't mean you're an ignorant person, just that you (or I, as the case may be) are not aware of all of the information or points that might exist. I don't mean it as an ad hominem attack, just as a question of your argument's merits and nothing more. As for the misdirection, I don't know what you're referring to, so the only way I can change my tone or argumentative style is by being made aware of it. Finally, as for my "lecturing" style, all I can do is try to make a pursuasive argument. If you find that to be "lecturing" then I don't know what to tell you. I realize that I'm prone to leaving "walls of text" for lack of a better word, but that's only because I want to address every argument you're making (again, this is a habit I've picked up in debate). Some of these things I might be able to tone down with your help, and some of these things are just character flaws that we all have to live with. I can only ask your help with the former and apologize for the latter. Regardless, you have my unwavering appreciation for your help in getting me unblocked, and my utmost respect for you as a person or editor, regardless of what I think of your proposals for whatever article we're working on. I hope that we can still work together in the future. Thank you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

_{For my own future reference: The lecture that took the wind out of my proactive sail, my reply, my comment on his talk page giving up, his claim that I was being counterproductive, and finally, my last reply to cut bait.}

MLS Attendances

I'd argue we should shy away from ESPN for MLS attendances. They've proven that they tweak the numbers for whatever reason in opposition to what the league's listed attendances and indeed our our own listed attendances on Wikipedia for individual games if you average them out. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Final FAC

Yo! I had a couple thoughts on the FAC but didn;t want to turn the nomination page into a second peer review. It is also my take on it so I might be incorrect.

• Reaction and Rewards: I notice the other FAs related to cup finals have a "Post match" section. By merging them, a short section would be eliminated which would look better and be inline with the others.

Post match

In the post-game press conference, Josh Wicks discussed his ejection, saying: "It was a mistake on my part and I've got to learn my lesson. The fourth official made a call and the ref made the final decision. That was it. I've got no excuses for it. Tremendously, very, very disappointing." One month after the stomping incident, U.S. Soccer announced that Wicks would be suspended from the U.S. Open Cup tournament for five matches. After the victory, many Sounders FC fans gathered at King County International Airport to greet the team as they returned to Seattle. The trophy was put on display at several events around Seattle in the weeks following Sounders FC's victory. On September 19, the cup was presented to Sounders FC fans to carry in the March to the Match prior to a Sounders FC league game at Qwest Field against Chivas USA. In winning the U.S. Open Cup tournament, Sounders FC earned a berth in the preliminary round of the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League. Seattle also received the winner's $100,000 cash prize, while D.C. United received $50,000 as the tournament runner-up. Kevin Forrest, whose game-winning goal against Colorado allowed Sounders FC to qualify for the tournament, received a share of the prize money and a medal, despite being released by the team before the final. In January 2010, the club's success in the U.S. Open Cup tournament was listed among the many reasons the Washington State Senate passed a resolution honoring Sounders FC.

• You might get a hard time about the logo. I think the FUR is fine but notice that the primary logo is not used in the FA Cup, EPL, and other footy related pages discussing individual years. Have you seen a year specific logo?
• The First half subsection should have the inline citations distributed throughout the paragraph if possible.
• A line or two more in the above section would fill it out to be comparable to other FAs. I'm not sure if it is necessary but maybe a line on formations used, possession ratio during the first half, or something similar might help.
• Other FAs have tables showing the road to the final. I don;t believe this is necessary and would detract from the text.

Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Hey, thanks so much for adding sources to the new DP changes I made. I guess I'm just out of practice. You're the best. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't responded to your lengthy comment on my talk page because I wanted to think about it for a bit before I did. That said, should I read anything into the fact that you just made that parenthetical observation, or was it simply something you wanted to add after rereading your comment? -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For my own context, the paranthetical observation. Probably a little of both. I was rereading my comment to make sure I wasn't being a jerk (I'm happy to report that I don't think I was). However, I added the paranthetical for two reasons: (1) to add a little more to entice you to actually click on the link and see what I was talking about; and (2) its rare statistically, thus you're very, very unlikely to accomplish this given the number of indefinite blocks issued vs. the number of awards given (odds are probably 1 in 100,000'ish). Maybe that adds more motivation. Maybe that just makes you mad. (shrug) --SkotyWA^T_C 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have taken a look, and I appreciate the faith you have in me. I'll provide more of a reply later. Have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MLS Results tables

No jokes: I know how much of a bitch it is to do that kind of editing, and you did an excellent job changing from lime green to lighter grey. Well done. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it really wasn't that hard. Copy/paste to notepad, find/replace, copy/paste back to browser. 20 seconds per edit (about). --SkotyWA^T_C 01:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that with the number of times I've made those kinds of edits I would have thought of that, but no, you're clearly much more logical than I am. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 MLS season templates

I'm sorry, but where did you find the consensus necessary to justify reverting the compromise supported by consensus? -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty clear in my comment what I was doing. I reverted it back to the previous consensus (and the only consensus that has ever been reached on the matter). I errantly "yielded to consensus" just 1.5 days after you broached the topic and you jumped at the opportunity to make your change. Since then many other editors have commented and posed questions that have yet to be answered. Furthermore, one of the editors has actually requested that it be reverted back until a new consensus is reached. I thought I made all this clear in my comments. Maybe not. BTW, your response is again petty and irrelevant to the topic. Please lets stick to the issues. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there wasn't a consensus last year. If you think there was, please take a look at this conversation where 6 editors were against your changes and 3 were in favor of them. I didn't start the thread, either. I don't care if you're not a soccer fan in general or whether you think MLS articles should look like North American sports articles, you have to recognize that this article falls under the jurisdiction of WT:FOOTY. I think what you're doing is the same kind of bullying and ownership that you accused me of last year. Also, for the record, which of the MLS team season articles are GA or FA status? I've been looking through them and they're all start-class articles and most of them have half-completed tables, etc. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the sweet irony here is that you're usually the first one to point out that we don't WP:VOTE, so your referenced 6-3 vote is hardly a point against consensus. Also, if you read the conversation, you can see that there was no true outcome there. You're choosing to use this conversation because its "vote" is convenient for your purposes. Here's a more aplicable convesation where consensus was reached despite your (or your sock's) best efforts to filibuster things. I encourage you to read WP:UNANIMOUS since you seem to be under the impression that as long as you hold out there can be no consensus. That's just not the case. Furthermore, as explained in this policy the fact that nobody (other than you and your socks) has discussed these links or reverted them in over a year makes it consensus via "silent acceptance". Next topic... excelent sluth work in checking to see if any season articles are GA's yet. If you look at WP:SSFC and WT:SSFC you'll see prioritization discussion for all the Sounders related "pet projects" I'm involved with. We've developed a number of GA and FA articles, but the season article has been lower priority. After I finish with the ongoing FA review of 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final I expect to finally nominate 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season for GA review. More sluth work for you: if you look at my edit history, you'll see that I've been working on the prose of the season article over the last month and a half (still have more to do). I'm flattered by your undying concern regarding my motives and the agressive fact checking. Now that you know everything, I hope you're not disappointed to discover that I'm not up to something sinister. All the best. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My point on the numbers was mainly to refute the usual argument that "I'm the only one against linking to season articles." I simply want it established that there are other editors with lenthy edit histories that feel the MLS-exception from normal footy standings is unnecessary. Nothing more. As for my quick research, I love the loaded characarization of it as "aggressive." I apologize if I've questioned your motives. Maybe it was because not five minutes after returning to the project Morry proceeded to question mine about a dozen times. If you want to take a quick look at his edit history around the 2nd of April, you'll see what I'm talking about. Anyway, I've recently graduated from college and today I was hired onto Bill O'Neill's campaign in Ohio's 14th congressional district, so I will be keeping a much lower profile for the next several months. My editing will be mostly limited to the weekends and whatnot. If it's awhile before we're working together again, please know that I've never had any personal problems with you. I think you're a great editor, a real asset to the encyclopedia and the MLS articles. I just disagree with you on some things. I do honestly apologize for how contentious things got over the last year or so. It wasn't good for anybody, least of all me. Anyway, all the best, and I'll talk to you soon. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. I've heard that in order to succeed in politics it is often necessary to rise above your principles. Seriously though, I remember how good it felt to finally graduate. I graduated with a BS in 2002 and got a software dev job in Redmond, WA (gee, who do you think I work for??), and have been here ever since. College was great, but I was very glad to be done with it when it was over. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you know why I questioned your intentions straight away as you picked up the same exact arguments. Has there been anyone speak up about the revert other than Grant thus far? Not to get too personal but congrats to the both of you on your career aspirations and goodluck in the future. Morry32 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Real football

great, that's clearer for a Brit, I've struck the last two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Just offering my congratulations having seen that 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has been promoted to FA. Keep up the good work! Cheers, BigDom 15:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to help wherever football articles are concerned (unless its Blackburn Rovers)! Feel free to let me know if you start working on getting any other articles to GA or FA and I'll have a look at them for you. Thanks, BigDom 15:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to follow up per your request (what you did was good), but found the article has been promoted. Congratulations! Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final.

Great work! LittleMountain5 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Task forces invitations

I see that you edit soccer-related articles. Would you like to join TSV 1860 München Task Force, FC Bayern Munich or SpVgg Unterhaching Task Force? Kingjeff (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Skotywa for contributions to articles I-cannot-at-present-think-of-an-adjective-to-describe-in-one-lot-of in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Well done, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Footballbox collapsible and MOS:COLLAPSE

I was checking through the MOS and it seems to have been changed back. Do you have any idea whether there was consensus to do it, or if it was simply an MOS elitist horrified that a mere mortal dared to discuss and change it? In either case, I think it might be a good idea to add a parameter to {{footballbox collapsible}} to make collapsing optional, but defaulting to collapsible collapsed. WFCforLife (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved now. Someone reverted the changes while I was on wikibreak, as a result of an editor abusing it to hide entire sections of prose. After leaving you the message, I restored it with a slightly tighter definition (using the word "tables", specifically implying that it's unacceptable to collapse prose), and although I've yet to see a final response, s/he seems to be willing to accept the principle for which it was initially intended, with the caveat that pro-collapse advocators are receptive to potentially tighter wording to prevent abuse. For the two purposes I'm aware of ({{footballbox collapsible}} and family trees) I can't see that being a problem.

How are things going at WP:SOUNDERS? WFCforLife (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final TfA?

Hi Skoty, I have a suggestion: maybe you should nominate 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final for September 2 at this link. –CG^Talk 19:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

–CG^Talk 18:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo Gonzalez photo

Thanks for the note - I thought it was an issue on with my internet connection, but turns out the Wikipedia server has a software bug that's causing reduced versions of images to not show up (if you're curious, this is the full sized version). The note says "Please sit tight, do not remove the images from articles, and hopefully the technical wizards will get it fixed soon.", so we can leave the broken image up and hope the tech wizards do their thing? --Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is a strong rationale for using it in the Open cup article, and that it's a marginal call for the main Sounders article. I'm reluctant to get involved in copyright discussions on this site though; in the past I've found it to be a frustrating and counterintuitive process. Regards, --WFC-- 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be cheesy for me to give you yet another one, but going to bat to get the permission was awesome. The photo is better known than the other one anyways.

		The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar
		For securing permission for an important image.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. I was a little surprised it actually was deleted. It seems like the tolerance for what is and is not accepted varies to a massive extent. Get the wrong user on the wrong day and boom, an image is nomed and gone. The guidelines really can be read strictly or loosely depending on who is reading them. Oh well. It all worked out. Shame it was such a pain. Hopefully Chivas will fall tomorrow and there will be another final with the Sounders this year.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Go through how many points it has and make sure there are not any conflicting articles that have more points on that date. Should be a realistic possibility.Cptnono (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

Hello! Your submission of 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Not totally an issue that you can fix, mainly an issue with the section you (apparently erroneously) chose to list the nomination under. I'll leave that bit to someone with more DYK experience to handle. Otherwise, you could help resolve the issues regarding the empty section and the hook. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page stalking

Oh no, nothing like that. It just means that I watch Dabomb's talk page! --WFC-- 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the way to go. In the (unlikely but plausible) event that you end up with a situation where there are three higher-scoring noms for dates after the intended Open Cup main page date, just drop a note on Raul's talk page. I believe that if there are no nominations that he takes one from the pending list (and if there isn't one, an article at random), but I don't know that for certain. --WFC-- 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FA review

Certain things take priority over everything else and family and work are certainly two of them. Best wishes to you.

Next March might work for FT. Probably need a couple other articles but it might be possible.

Next season might be interesting with some of the recent changes. Nothing major but enough that it might be the edge the Sounders need to progress to the MLS Cup!Cptnono (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

D'oh "TFA". That is an easily attainable goal unless someone comes up with one that has massive points!Cptnono (talk)

Hehehe: "There are several reasons why this is different than other MLS articles." You mean that it is FA? :) By the way, the FA for Sigi is going alright. One guy just ripped it apart CE wise (which was awesome) but I still see to worries: Is it NPOV enough (per a comment) and Sigi is wearing yellow an black in the main image (per Georges)? I think we can take care of the NPOV (I kind of like yelling at him myself) but I suck at photography. So regardless of if it goes through or not, if you have a chance to take a pic from a camera phone of him in Sounders' colors it would be sweet. To be honest, everyone we have tried has been horrible.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I actually just removed that last bit since it seemed too personal but you are awake right now! I assumed but didn't know if you were at the main campus or not. One of the dudes at Redmond is one of my buddies who was getting an extra ticket every few games. But the facility is so big it would probably be too hard to know who is who. The fun thing about Seattle is the tech and the soccer. One of the guys who I actually disagree with on the message boards at the Sounders page is a dude who I ran into at another reputable company in Kirkland. It was hilarious walking up to his desk and realizing it. Nintendo is also full of them. Who needs airplanes, right?Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you could get a pic it would be great. The one of him in Columbus gear is pretty good but if we had a recent one it would be great. If you are asking, let them know that Sigi's page is a hair away from being FA which is one of the best articles out of who-knows-how-many. Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skotywa. You have new messages at Grondemar's talk page.
Message added 19:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GAN for 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

Hello. I finished my review and placed the GAN on hold pending resolution of a couple of minor issues. You can find the review here. –Grondemar 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quickly addressing my concerns; I've passed the review. Congratulations! –Grondemar 02:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I've put down a few thoughts at the peer review. Regards, —WFC— 08:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

PR questions

I added three or four more very brief replies just now to the peer review for the Lamar Hunt Open article. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured list

As much as I'd like to get the results by opponent list featured in the future it might not happen now, if the outcome of this discussion is negative. The difference between what is and what isn't acceptable seems very hazy to me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Favour to ask

Hi there. I was wondering if I could draw on a little bit of your stateside sporting expertise. I'm trying to work on Terry Smith (football). Pretty interesting fellow, and while the sourcing is sub-standard, from what is there so far it's clear that the soccer-related stuff isn't too far off of the mark. I was wondering if you had any idea where I might go to find out a bit more about what he's done in American Football though, or if you could point me in the direction of someone who might? I've got no reason to doubt The Independent as a source, but I can't find any evidence of him ever being drafted or playing in the NFL, nor am I too sure where I might check if he is still involved in American football, as the article claims.

Btw, sorry if my suggestions have caused trouble at the FAC. I think the issue wasn't so much the ideas (which were definitely worth persuing), but my slackness at checking the last set of changes to a water-tight standard. On the other hand though, I don't see how anyone could dispute that two forwards for a midfielder and forward is "offensive-minded", or how any reader could possibly see "huge ovation" and "standing ovation" as being in any way different. —WFC— 12:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not too sure if it's the same person or not, because this guy was 41 in 1999 (although mysteriously 40 in 2000, so he's clearly doing something special!). Cheers for the pointers though, and I'll see if I can track down a Patriots fan. By the way, check out the proposal to put featured lists on the main page if you get the chance. —WFC— 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your nonstop push to create featured content. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing your user page fill with icons showing another DYK or featured article is fantastic. Consider jumping into the Wikicup next year.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

American Soccer Archives Invitation

I recently came across your User Talk page and noticed you're a Sounders fan. I'm an administrator at a American soccer website focused on the archiving of the history of American soccer history through text, statistics, images and videos. We recently started a wiki in order to create a more detailed and personal record of American soccer history and current events. We would love for you to contribute to the ASA Wiki as a supplement to Wikipedia. The two most important articles I would love to see developed are a page covering the upcoming friendly against Argentina and another outlining the online American soccer community, but feel free to contribute to any other pages.

If you have any questions or comments feel free to leave a message on my talk page on Wikipedia or on the ASA Wiki. We also have a forum for more general questions.

-- Fopam (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC is a Major League Soccer (MLS) team based in Seattle, Washington that plays its home matches at Qwest Field. It was established in November 2007 as an MLS expansion team. The league's 15th team; Sounders FC played the first match of its inaugural season on March 19, 2009. During their first two seasons every home game was sold out, they set a new MLS record for average match attendance, and they sold the most season tickets in the league. Seattle finished both seasons with a winning record and qualified for the MLS playoffs. In 2009 Sounders FC became the second expansion team in MLS history to win the U.S. Open Cup, and in 2010 became the first ever MLS team to repeat as Open Cup champions. Fans selected the Sounders name for the club through an online poll in 2008, making the Seattle Sounders FC the third Seattle soccer team to bear the moniker. (more...)

List of Seattle Sounders seasons

Unfortunately, I think that the list wouldn't stand a good chance of passing at FLC. The big stumbling block is criterion 3b. Since the list is so short, reviewers will probably recommend that the list be put into the main article on the Sounders. There's no official rule governing length, but there was an unofficial 10-item minimum in most cases in the past (don't know how many reviewers still have that in mind). Still, I think the size would be too great an issue to overcome in an FLC. The good news is that this shouldn't harm your FT hopes. If you want to have a separate list, I believe you are allowed to have a peer review count as "auditing" a page if it's too short to pass FLC. I'm not too familiar with the FTC process, meaning you should ask them if I'm correct. Good luck with the topic. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

MLS Cup 2010 GA review

It's a bit sad that many of the articles sharing the MLS championship are meager and modestly written, however, I could help add some citations to the MLS Cup 2010, in sections needed reference tags, such as the TV ratings and match analysis. Quidster4040 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

MLS Cup 2010 GA nomination?

Hey Skotywa - I've noticed that both the 2009 and 2010 editions of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Finals are rated as Good Articles. Looking at the content, references and quality of the 2010 MLS Cup final, I think it's worthy of being nominated for a GA-class article. Seeing as you were a huge driving factor behind the Open Cup final's Good Article nomination, I believe you could assist in the process of having this article nominated. How would that work, and is this possible? Quidster4040 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow up to your post - Thank you so much for the help! I have added a WP:GAN template to the talk page and created a subpage with the voting to determine whether or not the article is GA-class. Right now, it is a B-Class article. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders Position Per Round

I'm not sure where you are getting the position per round data as it has not been accurate. It is used to compare teams position after they have played the same amount of games. Currently only the Galaxy and Sounders have played 18 games so it is impossible to determine where they will finish round 18. This webpage is updated and can help you find the correct data. Thanks Metalman75402 (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you check the MLS table for Position by Round you should see that it matches. MLS_2011#Positions_by_Round Thanks Metalman75402 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

GAN for Steve Zakuani

Just so you know, I'm planning on doing the review for Steve Zakuani. I've got some work to do on another WikiProject but once that's done I'll begin, assuming no one else starts in the meantime. Looks pretty good from a brief skimming read, quite interested that he received an offer from PNE being a Prestonian myself, looking forward to going into more detail in the near future. GW(talk) 15:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steve Zakuani

The article Steve Zakuani you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Steve Zakuani for things which need to be addressed. GW(talk) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of questions about the stats table, because I'm a bit confused. Not so much the stats themselves but the names. Does "League Cup" refer to the MLS Cup Playoffs? And does "North America" refer to the CONCACAF Champions League? GW(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been passed as a good article. Congratulations! There is currently a large backlog of good article nominations in the Sports and Recreation topic. You're under no obligation to, but now that you've recently gone through the GAN process, you're best placed to perform a review of your own, so please consider it. Thanks for being so cooperative. GW(talk) 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Squad

Hey man! I noticed that their is an on-off "contreversy" on the Seattle Sounders FC squad list. I greatly dislike the current version. Almost all football (soccer) teams have a diferent version than us and I think it shouldn't be like that. I really hope that we can change this one day.

Thanks for your help and see you around,

Antoinefcb (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

This is a note to let the main editors of 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 4, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final was played on October 5, 2010, at Qwest Field (now CenturyLink Field) in Seattle, Washington. The match determined the winner of the 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, a tournament open to amateur and professional soccer teams affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation. This was the 97th edition of the oldest competition in United States soccer. Seattle Sounders FC won the match, defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1. The final drew an attendance of 31,311, surpassing the 81-year-old record for the event. Sounders FC became the first team since 1983 to win two consecutive U.S. Open Cup championships and the first Major League Soccer club to ever do so. As a result of its U.S. Open Cup championship, Seattle earned a berth in the preliminary round of the 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League, as well as a $100,000 cash prize. The Crew received the runner-up prize of $50,000. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And... GO

Nice work on getting 2010 on the main page. I guess the threepeat means this year's has to get at least GA! I trust you enjoyed the evening. Cptnono (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It was awesome! I had a group of 41 people from work at the game. Well, 15 from work plus their family and friends. A lot of new people exposed to the Sounders. Very fun stuff. We had really good seats right in front fo the trophy ceremony. So as I work on the article, expect to see some nice pictures (no special permission needed this time). Of course I'm going to work on the next article. I'll probably start this weekend once the post-match swarm of edits dies down. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Apologies for receiving your message late. Nice work. Here's to a Sounders' victory!Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)