User talk:Bobblehead/Archive 3

please reopen the discussion of Obama birthplace in Obama Talk
You hid the active discussion of Obama birthplace in Obama Talk as "TL:DR" which apparently means too long, did not read. How can you claim a discussion is spam when you did not read it? Also too long is subjective because now people are asking me to give concise reasons for re-opening it but that would violate your subjective sense of proper length. I claim the discussion contains new information and new suggestions made in good faith, and the discussion was active at the time you closed it, and that should trump any subjective concerns of length, especially if you did not bother to read the discussion. Eclectix (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost
This #time thing is beyond my grasp.... and I tried changing some access dates to month, day year and it didn't help. Tvoz / talk 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, someone must have done something - it's ok now. I think I'm not even going to try to figure this one out.  Thanks for trying to explain it to me- a futile task.... Tvoz / talk 02:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Da-dum. Now I see who did something.  Thanks. Tvoz / talk 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So should we be entering dates as MDY until they fix this? Tvoz / talk 02:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it worked! Tvoz / talk 04:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect pronounciation my ass...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.191.108 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Obama Article
Bobblehead, saying Obama was born in Hawaii is not a verifiable fact either, and may cause damage to the citizens of the United States of America. Putting that he was born in Hawaii is currently not verifiable by irrefutable evidence. Thus, it is not pursuant to Wikipedia's standards concerning Biographies of Living Persons.

Should you block my speech in the Obama discussion, I will speak to my attorney and file for damages against you specifically, for abusing your position as an Administrator of Wikipedia, to deny me my right to protection under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The GNU Free Documentation License does not allow you to use your position as an Administrator to destroy talk that is valid and not vandalism. I have not vandalized the talk page, and have not edit warred. I am not going to have my right to First Amendment protection denied to me, and legally, you can not deny me from editing Wikipedia because of an opinion you hold. It was reverted originally for the given reason of "not worth discussion", which is an opinion, not a fact. Banning me and reverting my discussion on the Obama thread will be reported to the proper legal authorities and to the head Administrators of Wikipedia, and they will possibly revoke your administrative privileges for violating the Constitution of the United States of America.

You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org] and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. Blocked the wrong person. I'm a naughty admin who needs to be spanked. I'm sorry!-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus side.. I now have an entry in my block log. I shall wear it as a badge of honor.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. I am certain it was accidental so I unblocked.—Sandahl (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about clearing the autoblock on my IP? :)--Bobblehead (rants) 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try it now, I think I cleared it. -MBK004 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! autoblock cleared. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing though, what's a head administrator of Wikipedia? Oh, erm, forget I asked :P Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's me. I'm the Head Administrator of Wikipedia.  So you can see how badly the whole project is doomed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, thank you and very slick head administering there, too, very much so :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never fear, Wikipedia was doomed long before you became Head Administrator. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning
I won't do those kinds of edits anymore. But I still think my edits were funny, not vandalism. I knew they would be corrected in a very short amount of time, and I hope some people here got the humor in them. If my overall edit history is 99.9% legitimate edits, I think I should be cut some slack for the other 0.1%. But since you were kind enough to warn me, I won't do it anymore. Thanks for the warning - it's way better than a ban or a block. I won't do those kinds of edits anymore.

Obama has repeatedly said that he wanted to raise taxes on the rich and on capital gains. Whatever you tax, you get less of. The stock market is forward looking, and it has been tanking ever since it became apparent that Obama would probably be the next President. How did you think the stock market would react to Obama's proposals? Do think investors are happy with Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax? Countries in western Euorope have raised their gasoline tax in order to discourage people from using gasoline - so why would Obama's promise to raise the captial gains tax not cause investors to flee the stock market? Personally, I think we should tax carbon dioxide emissions, gasoline, coal emissions, and other forms of pollution, instead of taxing income and jobs. Income and jobs are good - pollution and global warming are bad. We should tax the bad stuff, not the good stuff. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle / ARRA chat
I said I'll stop but he really gets on my nerves with his conspiracy theories against President Obama and his right wing rants. He even puts them on user talk pages, including mine and as you can see above, yours.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)



TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Right wing? Ha! Check out my userpage. I am pro choice, I favor legalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the embargo against Cuba. Just because I oppose a bill that the public never got to read doesn't mean I'm a right winger. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Russia dab pages
Re your edit (swapping template SIA for Russia disambig using AWB). Was there any decision to do so ? If yes, then the manual for Russia disambig must say something to the end: "this template must supercedes must replace Russia disambig " and similar templates.", preferrably with the link to the discussion in the talk page. Can you do this? I am saying so because it is not immeditaely evident that the replacement of a more detailed category "Set indices on Russian inhabited localities" by a much broader and hence much larger " Russia disambiguation" - 7-bubёn >t 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that not only me who expresses concern about doing such masive chanes without explanations anywhere. There is nothing in Template talk:SIA nor in Template talk:Russia disambig. There is no deletion discussion for Category:Set_indices_on_Russia. Your edit summaries do not give a clue. Sprry, but I am reverting your change while it is easy to do so (no one edited the pages): it is much easier to depopulate a category than to repopulate it. Please discuss in WP Russia. - 7-bubёn >t 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.;) I'll pop over and point everyone to the various discussions about the inappropriate use of SIAs. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, I added a comment to the opposite effect (i.e., about the appropriate use of SIAs :)). You might want to review it before posting to WT:RUSSIA.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:38, February 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No biggie :) Consider my earlier post as a response to your note on WT:RUSSIA.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:57, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama
This about a remark you posted on Talk:Barack Obama. I went through WP:NOT and kept wondering how did that policy fit into the point being raised by me. Seems that you just wanted mention your viewpoint even though it was completely irrelevant to the concerned topic. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?
I've started a discussion in Talk:Seattle_Sounders_FC on your claim of original research when you reverted my most recent edit. It seemed like I cited the references pretty well. Help me understand where you're coming from on this. --SkotywaTalk 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the explanation on the article talk page. Makes sense, and I agree with you now.  Thank you also for being so polite in how you handled my questions.  I appreciate it. --SkotywaTalk 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Email
The formatting came across poorly. The email was literally: Sounders FC / The Outlook signature / my message. I at first assumed it was a confirmation email too but after looking at it I think someone over there just didn't care enough to add a salutation or full sentences. Overall, my plan failed. Maybe I'll call them or look at any literature received on game day.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Objection to your edits
It may violate Wikipedia policy, but the U.S. Constituion is more important. How am I supposed to message you like you do me? Is there a "Wikipedia email" or some such thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A16529 (talk • contribs)

Your own page says that you're a progressive (usually meaning liberal). You always delete any mention of Obama's alleged lack of qualifications to hold the office of POTUS on his page, and the current page. I may be violating Wikipedia policy, but the United States Constitution is far more important. Obama refuses to release his birth certificate; why, if he has nothing to hide? (Did you even read the citations I put?)I plan on going into the military, but even though I have yet to take the oath, I intend to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, even if I get blocked for eternity. I will continue to post some form of what I have been putting because something suspicious is going on in our world. I will continue as I have been until the matter has been resolved properly (unless, of course,you wish to reword my entry in an "acceptable" way that meets your "policy".) In the meantime, I highly encourage you and anyone else to look at the citations I noted and other articles by going to obamaforgery.com and searching eligbility and Obama on www.wnd.com (World Net Daily) Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A16529 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Meat?
Hi. I noticed your message on Grundel's talk page indicating WP:MEAT? Was that directed at one of us? I would hope you're not suggesting that I am a meatpuppet of Grundel. One look at my history on wikipedia would indicate otherwise. I am interested in conflict resolution, which is what drew my attention to Grundel. I contacted him, we had no previous contact. I have never in my knowledge, previously edited a article that Grundel edited before today. My only action on Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009 was to tag it, and leave it to uninvolved editors at WikiProject Law to deal with. I hope that clears that up. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of being a meatpuppet of Grundel, just noting the policy as Grundel seemed to take your offer as an offer for meatpuppetish activities. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll understand what I'm trying to do very soon. I do hope he can become a good editor. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I always want to follow the wikipedia rules. I had never even heard the term "meat puppet" until today. I don't want any meat puppets, or anything else that violates the wikipedia rules. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama
I have unprotected the article. I also left a note at ANI to make sure the article is well watched for the next few days. KnightLago (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2009 (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) 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI
As the user didn't see fit to inform you, you have been mentioned at ANI.  Grsz 11  00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw and was responding. Just typing slow because I'm multi-tasking. Thanks for the notification. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

MLS Portland
The fact that I do a lot of work on MLS articles doesn't mean that I think I own them. There's never been a single instance where I've justified a controversial edit with some form of "Because I said so, and I own the article," and throwing that accusation around is a violation of WP:NPA. The simple fact is that while Timbers will surely be part of the new team's name, the new team's name has not been officially announced. Look at the fact that the Seattle Sounders became Seattle Sounders FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC have changed many times over the last few years between Vancouver Whitecaps, Whitecaps FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. It is simply speculation to say anything else right now. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

resignations
What are some other resignations that were forced? Contino (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bush Admin forced the CEOs of AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to resign as a condition of their bailouts. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Then Michael Moore is wrong.  He said today on his website, michaelmoore.com, "I have never heard of such a thing in all my days: The main representative of the people ordering a corporate chieftain to step down — today! And not just any corporate CEO, but the head of the company that has spent more years at #1 on the Fortune 500 than any other corporation in the world"


 * Michael Moore must be wrong?! Contino (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're surprised by that?  Grsz 11  22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * MM wrong? Shocking.. Shocking. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we should edit the Micheal Moore article in Wikipedia...."Moore's own website has published wrong information (reference: Bobblehead)." Just kidding. Contino (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not a reliable source. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shocking! Michael Moore declared wrong.  Bobblehead admits he is unreliable!   Do not offer to bring cookies, you may show up without them...very unreliable. Contino (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Q
Suppose an admin blocks a user merely for disagreeing with the admin about content. And ANI does nothing. Is that necessarily the end of the story? This seems like a very dangerous situation. Can't an admin thereby dictate whatever content in the article that the admin wants?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be against WP:UNINVOLVED, imho. Given your history with KC and her involvement in the content dispute on Palin's article, I don't think it was appropriate for her to ban you from the article. That being said, it's not clear that the AN/I discussion has concluded in favor of keeping you banned from the article. It's still in progress, but there does seem to be several adminny types that have issues with KC banning you and in favor of lifting the ban. Best option is to let KC respond and if she refuses to lift the ban at that point, see if another admin is willing to lift the ban. Until then, Wikipedia's a big site, focus on another article for awhile. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks. I think I'll focus on editing your user page.  :-)  I think your user page should say "Who has way too much time on his hands."

Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There ya go.:) --Bobblehead (rants) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries
I edited the bottom template box thingamajig again with a longer edit summary for you. Didn't realize the Heritage Cup was included for a specific (and good) reason. Let me know if Chivas IS supposed to be in. SF is the other participant from what I read so I swapped them. If there is another rivalry between Chivas and SEA I am not aware of just throw it back in.Cptnono (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Sounds good.Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Season page naming convention
Thanks for starting this discussion. FWIW, I was amused and disappointed by Grant.Alpaugh's claim that I'm "obviously a fan of European Football" and his insinuation that this "fact" somehow invalidated my opinion. I've told him as much. While I hope the consensus isn't arrived at by Grant beating everyone else into submission (as he tends to do), in the end I don't think it matters enough to argue further with him. Thanks for your good intentions trying to start a productive discussion.--SkotywaTalk 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Now he's choosing to enforce his whims on 2009_Seattle_Sounders_FC_season. I appreciate your chiming in on this and would love to hear any feedback you have for me on how I'm handling myself.  I know I can do better.  I'm having difficulty ignoring his personal attacks and sticking to the facts though.  Thanks for keeping the conversation grounded.  --SkotywaTalk 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First thing I notice is that I'm not sure that Grant's use of "fanboy" or "fanboyism" is necessarily a personal attack against you. It is probably just shorthand for information that is not of interest to the "average" Wikipedia reader. You also seem to have a bit of a double standard with your approach to the whole edit war. Just because something is added to the article, it doesn't mean that consensus is required to remove it. Adding content to article also requires consensus, so as long as only you and Grant have expressed your opinion on the content then there is no consensus to include or not include the content. In that case, the default state is generally to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to request input from other editors. If you aren't familiar with dispute resolution, please see WP:DR. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This logic is really important. Bobblehead, please comment on these ongoing issues from this mindset.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New thoughts are required at these template talk pages. Please take a few minutes to check it out.  Grsz 11  22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bobblehead, do you understand what I am saying about SuperLiga on Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer season table?  Grsz 11  23:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi. I am going to ask you to revert this edit that you made. Understand that another party being blocked for 3RR does not give you the right to violate it yourself. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. My bad. Could have sworn undoing a 3RR after the other editor was blocked was included in the exceptions, but looks like I was wrong. I've reverted my revert. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed as much. Just for future reference take a peak at this . Tiptoety  talk 00:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you may already know, Grant likes to get his own way. Kingjeff (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the block will be a learning experience for him. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is now a Request for comment that you may be involved in.  Grsz 11  13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

MLS template on 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season page
Hey, I noticed you added the Major League Soccer template to the 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season page. Isn't the 2009 Major League Soccer season by team template enough? I kind of felt like the Sounders template and the 2009 season make sense (since the article is the intersection of the two), but the MLS template was a bit overkill. I dunno, just a thought. ← George [ talk  ] 05:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on the other articles, so I copied it over to the Sounders article. *shrug* If you think it is overkill, then go ahead and remove it. I don't care either way. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant Alpaugh
Next time you see a sock evading blocks, especially those who've caused so much drama, please report straight away. As you can now appreciate, some people are blocked for a good reason. The time for second chances is well past for this user. Good work. Nja 247 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I was trying the "no drama" approach. The "revert edits and tell them to move on" approach has worked for me in the past, but seems Grant is one of the more hard headed people that needs to have the block button utilized. I'm also rather leery about getting IP addresses blocked because they have a propensity of changing and can end up in the "wrong person" being blocked. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Help request
thanks for helping me...but Ii have another question. if you acidentally delete something you don't want to delete, how do you get it back? Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Moved from user page. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Truth (painting)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Give me an assignment
I noticed that you're going through and making the MLS team season articles one by one. I want to help, but I also don't want to get in the way. What would be the best way for me to help in this effort? I could get started on the RSL season article if that would help. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll start on the Western Conference teams this weekend. I'll start with RSL.  I finally got around to updating Template:fb rbr result and Template:fb rbr footer to support T for tie instead of D for draw.  I went around and updated all of the season pages to use W-L-T.  It occured to me that as I edited 2009 D.C. United season I might have messed you up if you were in the middle of a big edit.  If I did, I'm sorry.  That's exactly what I don't want to do.  Also, if we're trying to follow Away/Home formatting the away team needs to be team1 and the home team needs to be team2.  In the end, neither of these things matter that much to me.  They were work items I intended to do based on my wonderful interactions with Grant.  He won't be bothering me any more, but once I start something, I often feel I need to finish it.  That's the case here with me and the W-L-T formatting.  Hope that doesn't annoy you.  Anyway, I'm done with it now, so if we want to revert back to W-D-L, I'm okay with that. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw your comment here on Home/Away formatting. Nevermind on my comments for that one.  I'm cool with Home/Away and I'll continue with that in the articles I create. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I spent so much time answering every one of Grant's petty comments the last two weeks that I neglected some real life responsibilities. I've been catching up on those and as a result I haven't been able to jump in yet and help you out with this effort.  When I get to creating season articles, I'll do it the same way you have by starting with a skeleton (copy of another article) and then filling in the pieces over the next few hour or so.  If you get to RSL and I haven't started the skeleton yet, go for it.  Sorry for dogging you like this.  I know I said I wanted to help and now I'm not delivering. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 19:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Man you did that quick. Great work!  I'm not totally back yet, but I wanted to share an idea I've been working on to see what you think.  The month by month groupings of games has bugged me ever since it was added to the Sounders FC season article.  I thought the idea was headed in the right direction, but I knew we could do better than that.  Inspired by some stanley cup templates I found, I've prototyped something that I think might be a lot better than the current monthly groupings.  Please take a look here.  This uses a new template I've created, Template:Footballbox collapsible, which supports all of the same parameters as Template:Footballbox currently being used in the season articles, so the transition should be simple.  If you're cool with this, I'd be happy to do the quick makeover on each of the season pages (probably 5 minutes worth of work for each page). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 07:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that was harder than I thought. How does this look? Good to go? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing, I've gone back and forth on the divider lines.  Right now there is a 1 pixel line on the top and bottom of the table.  This means that when two or more are next to each other there is a 2 pixel line between them and a 1 pixel line at the top and bottom of the group.  Other options include just putting the line at the top of the table or the bottom.  This would result in a 1 pixel line between each game (better I think), but a missing line at the top or bottom of a group (not as good I think).  Do you think it should change at all?  What's your preference?  I think I'm going to get started with the switch to this because this tweak (if necessary) can happen at any time even after the switch is made.  Ahh the beauty of templates. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this (note I also tweaked your stadium value so it would fit on one line):


 * I'm not sure if I should surface the penalty score in the collapsed view as well. I think I can pull that off if you think it would be worth it.  Wadaya think? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, how about this (the transclusion above is updated with the change)? Thanks for your help on this.  A second opinion is incredibly valuable. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I spotted your edit but didn't think we would collide. Sorry if I screwed up your work.  Thanks for jumping on this.  You rock!  I should be done soon.  Ever since we worked on this last week, I wasn't quite satisfied with how they were collapsing.  I totally agreed with you that city, state, country info should be there, but the &lt;br&gt; above the fold wasn't working for me.  Thanks for going along with this.  I hoped you'd think it was a good idea.--SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Philly MLS
I could see your point if I was going off of MLS Rumors, but the name was announced by the Philadelphia Inquirer. I won't make any more changes 'til Monday.JaMikePA (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Qwest Field
Are you cool with what I've proposed here? Wanted to get your thoughts. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE : Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.


 * ,, , and  are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
 * In addition, and  are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
 * and are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.  and  are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.


 * is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
 * and are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
 * is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing study
Hi Bobblehead. I'm a phd student in mass communication at Indiana University and I'm doing some research on the editing of Wikipedia. One of the articles I am studying is Barack Obama. My questions in the study are about the editing process on high-profile current affairs articles and how the editing changes over time. As part of the study I would like to do some group (or individual) discussions with editors. I was hoping you might be interested in participating. I would like to have discussions via skype with three to four editors at a time who worked together on the same article. The conversation would be 30 minutes to an hour. If you are interested I could send a summary of the project and other stuff the university requires me to send. lyonspen | (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. To make things easier I have come up with a survey on editing at Barack Obama. I hope you can take the time to fill it out. It's here:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d Thanks again, lyonspen | (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Something strange
I hope I'm wrong, but as I look at the new user AfterMayAndIntoAugust's contributions, I can't help but be reminded of a certain blocked user. If it's him, he's definitely trying to be nicer, but I definitely see a resemblance. The user name itself also struck me as odd. Tell me I'm crazy and I'll shut up. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay the wording of this edit really brought back memories. He claims to not have read the full discussion, but brings up Grant's arguments almost verbatim with no new points.  I'm pretty sure this is Grant.  --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! I was right.  George took care of it.  Sorry if I pestered you.  --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight topic banned
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

FA reviews
Hey, I know you've been checked out for a bit around here, but if you're still online, you may be pleased to see the feature article reviews for Qwest Field, and Seattle Sounders FC: I think the one for Qwest is probably almost done, and the Sounders review probably has 1-2 weeks left. Anyway, just an FYI, I know you worked on both of these. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1
 * Featured_article_candidates/Seattle_Sounders_FC/archive1

Can't forget about you
There has been some back slapping all around but we have failed to mention your work on the Sounders FC article. I don't know if you realize, but you have the second highest amount of contributions on the article. You also set a great pace early on. I totally agree with Cptnono on this. You got the article started off on the right foot. We just kept it moving on its journey to FA quality. --SkotyWAT|C 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox consensus
Re: The consensus he's referring to is here. --SkotyWAT|C 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? I see a consensus to remove most of the MLS specific parameters from the infobox, but honors was specifically exempted from that consensus. The discussion seemed to lean towards including them rather than removing them.--Bobblehead (rants) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MLS Players category
Whoa! Where was the consensus to remove this? That category provides a historical record of every player who has played in MLS. You can't just remove it arbitrarily. A lot of people use that as a source of information (myself included!) --JonBroxton (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Seamon Number for training camp
In a video, I saw him wear the number 9 so I put him down as number 9. On Soundersfc.com click the video "The Rookie Experience". You see him with the #9. Antoinefcb (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Season Articles
I just collided with you twice (NE and RSL). I wanted to help, but you're too fast for me. :) It's all yours. --SkotyWATC 03:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going through and filling out the home/away info in the summary now. I'm starting at the top of the league table and working my way down.  If you want to work on that too, just start at the bottom (TFC) and work the other direction. --SkotyWATC 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hello
There is so much incivility in the Obama talk page. Your moderate ideas, not extremist ones of both ends of the spectrum, is a welcome change. JB50000 (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Estrada's number
Not my fault, somebody put #9 on his page and also the template, so it maybe true it may not be true. – Michael (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Carpal Tunnel
Have you got it yet? You're like a machine tonight! :D Thanks for your note the other day, sorry I didn't reply before. I understand what you're doing now, so it's all good. Keep up the excellent work! --JonBroxton (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Elimination of Competition categories.
Hi, listen, I think in this case you are making an enormous amount of wrong edits. The problem is that both, club and competition, categories are used. You must have in consideration that a player may have played for a certain club, and that maybe in some period that club wasn´t competing in certain competition, so not all the players of one club must have played in that competition. See the point? Clubs and competitions are two different categories, and they shouldn´t be mixed. You should really adress this to the WikiProject Football, but I´m sure what you are doing has no precedent in soccer and it is wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the competition has the particularity of not having relegations nor promotions, but anyway, we can´t really be sure if in future some clubs may leave or others enter, which would in that case complicate things. And, it is usual to have both tipes of categories included. I understand you but, we could find more cases. For exemple, we could support the removal of La Liga category from all Real Madrid footballers, since Real Madrid allways played in La Liga, and that way we wouldn´t be repeting ourselfs... But, that wouldn´t be right. And another thing: some players may have been part of the club, played other competitions with the club, but never played in MLS... Then, they would have the club category, but not the MLS one. I honestly think that you are making a sufficient amount of edits, and by its nature, you should have just posted it in the Project talk page, so a consensus is reached. FkpCascais (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, many thanx for the additional explanation. I must confess that as a world soccer entusiast, I allready knew most of it, but it was maynly because of the understanding of the category in a different way that this missunderstanding between us occured. I had a notion that the category, despite being named by the "company" MLS, it would be more directed towards the league itself, and the appearances, or not, of the players in the MLS League matches. Since the clubs, like in the majority of other countries/leagues, also compete in the international and continental competitions, the capped players club lists may be different from one competition to another, so the categories would be used in that way. Anyway, I see you understood perfectly my point, and your words completely explained to me the reason of your edits so, not wanting to delay you, or annoy you any more, if no other editors complain about this, it´s certainly not me who is gonna be disguised in a US soccer expert :) . Thanx for all, and good editing! FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Major League Soccer players
I think that before emptying this category, you should have discussed this with a wider forum. I have therefore posted a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll head over to join in the discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Schedule
Bobblehead, I am very sorry about me deleting the second Vancouver game. I didn't know abouot it and couldn't find a link. Please forgive me. Antoinefcb 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article review request
If you have time available, I would really appreciate a peer review from you for the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final article. Specifically, it's probably in need of an independent copyedit, some more eyes on it from people who are familiar with the event to ensure that I haven't left anything pertinant out, and probably a good review to ensure that a WP:NPOV has been maintained throughout (it's very possible that the author could be biased). A peer review is currently open on the article, so feel free to leave comments or suggestions there. Alternatively, just be bold and update the article directly and make notes of your changes on the peer review page. Thanks for your help. --SkotyWATC 03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of War on Terrorism - Timeline
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh
I just wanted to let you know that I had been unblocked. I apologize for all of the conflict in the last year, and I hope to work with you in the future to much more productive and enjoyable ends. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  19:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Portland MLS Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Portland MLS Logo.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  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) 05:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SEA Activity Check
Hello Fellow WikiProject Seattle members,

My name is Russell, and I saw that the Seattle WP was tagged as only semi active, so was BOLD and decided to jump in and see about revitalizing the project. Your recieving this message because you are listed as a participant in the project. If you are still interested in participating, please update the table with a status. If you do not respond by Jan 1, you will be considered inactive. If you want to opt out before then, simply remove your name from the table.

Questions, comments, concerns, let me know on either the project or my talk page.

Thank you, and have a great day.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Seattle at 06:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:


 * Loremaster says he is:


 * Loremaster wants people to:


 * Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

--Loremaster (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL
 * 1) Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
 * 2) I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
 * 3) In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

Major League Soccer players
I don't like the idea of having a limited number of players listed on Category:Major League Soccer players, can you explain why we're doing this? – Michael (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice the category for every team's players is included as a sub-category for the MLS players category. In a league that does not have promotion and relegation it is redundant to include players under both categories in the same manner that it is redundant to include Seattle in Category:Cities in Washington (U.S. state) and Category:Cities in the United States by state. In a league, like the Premier League, where there is promotion and relegation it is not redundant because a player that is included in Category:Nottingham Forest F.C. players could have spent all of his time while they were in Football League Championship, Football League One, or the Premiership. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well, redundant or not, I think it's a rediculus idea to limit that, USL doesn't have promotion or relegation either but players are included on both categories. If we're not doing anything with that category, why do we even have it?  That's just me. – Michael (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, USL did have promotion and relegation. It was just voluntary and most teams didn't take advantage of it. The Cleveland City Stars were USL-2 champins the season before they were promoted into USL-1. There has also been a lot of teams moving up and down the USL pyramid outside of pro/rel, i.e. the Charleston Battery dropping from USL-1 to USL-2 last season because they didn't want to deal with the crap that went on in D2 last year. Additionally, there have been a lot of teams that have played in multiple leagues in the lower division, i.e. Montreal Impact have played in USL-1, USSF D2, and NASL just in the last three seasons. That isn't the case with MLS, where all of the teams have played in only MLS. As for the purpose of the MLS player category, it organizes the team player categories. Can you imagine trying to dig through the US competition players category to find Chicago Fire players?--Bobblehead (rants) 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the big deal about digging through it? – Michael (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that isn't how categories work on Wikipedia. Please read WP:CAT.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just my thought, but maybe we should create Category:MLS players by club and use that as a sub-cat. – Michael (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that would resolve... I guess I'm confused as to what you want to use the MLS player category for? If you want to use it as a receptacle for all MLS players, you'd probably be better served by creating a List of Major League Soccer players similar to the List of current Major League Soccer players. It would be much easier to maintain and keep accurate. It would also be a lot more informative than a simple list of article names. -Bobblehead (rants) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Create the page and then add the MLS player category? – Michael (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would certainly work. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This will take a couple days cause I have other things going on outside Wikipedia. Merry Christmas. – Michael (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WP Seattle activity check - reminder
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Seattle at 12:32, 23 December 2010 (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 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,. 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! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 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...)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for TFA support
Hello again. I haven't crossed paths with you much lately. I come with a humble request. :^) I've nominated the 2010 USOC final for TFA on October 4th here.  If you get time in the next few days, please add your support.  It'll need it I expect.  Very low points. --SkotyWATC 15:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey!
Long time no see - good to see you over on Obama! This Medo4 guy is really irritating - just goes on and on making one incorrect edit after another after being reverted, no comments, no response to what's been said on his talk page. I can't tell what his story is - I'm hoping he burns himself out. Can a person be blocked for cluelessness? He does generate a lot of work for everyone else. Anyway, good to see you - hope all's well! Tvoz / talk 23:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't even tell if it's deliberate vandalism - bizarre type of vandalism if so. And yes, we are still talking about the same things we were talking about 4 years ago.  Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...  Tvoz / talk 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Seattle Sounders FC season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erik Friberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 season
Hey, I just took a shot at the prose for a new section covering the 2011 season. All facts should be properly referenced. When you get a moment, please review it and propose any changes you think need to be made before it's added to the article. Thanks for your help. --SkotyWATC 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle

 * Yours,


 * To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reporter requesting to talk
Hi, my name is Zach and I'm a reporter for National Journal. I'm writing a story on political wikipedia editors and I'd love to talk to you for it. If you're interested, shoot me an email at zmontellaro(at)nationaljournal.com. I'm also happy to answer any questions you have! Zach NJ (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm
20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Light Bulb listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Light Bulb. Since you had some involvement with the Light Bulb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

you're missed!
Hope you're okay!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM
06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm
23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Seattle Wiknic 2018
01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM
08:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PM
05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Seattle Wiknic 2019
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Great American Wiknic virtual edition 2020
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Seattle/Invitees list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Seattle, please add or remove your name here.

Nomination for deletion of Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts
Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts
Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

May 2022 Seattle meetup
23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Barack Obama Sr Jr.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Barack Obama Sr Jr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

March 2023 Seattle meetup
04:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Nomination of Hong Tran for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hong Tran, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Hong Tran (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2023
01:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.