Hello Athies22, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi, Oregon is the Pac-12 North Division Co-Champion with Stanford, because both will end with a 7–2 conference record. However, because Oregon lost to Stanford, Stanford goes to the Championship Game. Oregon is still North Co-Champion, though.
Cheers, Ben^Yes? 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually not the case, the Pac-12 has made their rules so that there are no co-anythings, they have a motto of One Game. One Champion. Rules for tie-breaking procedures can be found at this link http://static.pac-12.com/sports/football/championship/index.html, and nowhere in the rules does it mention a Divisional Co-Champion, they simply do not exist, by design.

Athies22 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is correct. Look at the 2013 Pac-12 Media Guide, page 19 for the Ducks' 2012 season summary. At the top of the "2012 Results" table, they show Oregon as having been tied for 1st in the Pac-12 North. Then on page 34, they have a footnote that says that based on tiebreakers, Stanford was the North division representative. So I'm not sure it's as definite as all that. The conference seems to be saying that yes, the teams are tied, but there is a procedure that breaks the tie. --Esprqii (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification as far as the tie goes, I'll admit I'm wrong there, I just sent a media request to the Pac-12 to clarify if that means they are considered Co-Champions. Athies22 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to find editors who are willing to defer to cited material rather than what they think things should be. Though to be honest, the Pac-12 is not particularly consistent about how they list these things. For example, in our other edit discussion with Template:2012 Pacific-12 football standings, as you note, they do list Oregon on top; but compare that to Template:2002 Pacific-10 football standings in which Washington State (which won the tiebreaker with USC) is listed first both on the template and in the Pac-12 media guide, even though USC is tied with them, has a better overall record, and comes first alphabetically. Same thing with Template:1992 Pacific-10 football standings. And then there are situations like Template:1935 PCC football standings where teams were tied and the Rose Bowl invite was totally arbitrary. Bottom line is that while I agree we have to defer to "official" material, we should keep in mind that those listings are inconsistent as well. Might be another thing to ask them about if they respond to your request. --Esprqii (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Miller of ESPN.com reported " ... from Pac-12 spokesman Dave Hirsch on whether USC can claim the South championship: "USC can not own that title. USC can say that it finished first, but not champion. Our division champions participate in the championship game, so UCLA will be considered champion, or co-champions should it finish tied with ASU." Ucla90024 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that, I've been looking for clarification on ties for first and co-champions vs champions for a month now. Athies22 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

--Jsayre64 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the draft table from 2013 Pacific-12 Conference football season?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it, I added it. The reason for adding it is to display the Pac-12 players from the 2013 season who were drafted for historical purposes. Athies22 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you accidentally removed the summary table. See 2013_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#2014_NFL_Draft. I will restore it. You may or may not want to do what I am doing with the Big Ten, which is just copying templates from the draft page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, I removed it because I thought it was a misplaced attendance tracker based on the color scheme, but you're right it should stay on there.Athies22 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given a reason why you reverted the first time. Now, you revert 100+ lines of changes because of one win. What, you are too lazy to update the one win? You spending 30 seconds or me spending another hour, egads. Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted the first time was because you made changes to tables that made them look worse than they did before, if you can figure out a way to accomplish your goal and leave the lines on the tables as then go right ahead. Athies22 (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You never said that!!!!!!! Also, that becomes subjective and not a blanket reason to revert. You talk first and not revert for no reason. What tables were made worse? Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are worse because you removed the lines from them that make it easy to read them, whenever you revert you also remove a new table I made for the College Football Hall of Fame Inductees, as well as updates to tables about division championships, stick to editing pages that you have business editing.Athies22 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, anybody can edit any page. NEVER tell anybody not to edit. You do not own the page to where you can tell people to edit or not to edit. I have blocked people for saying that.

1. I didn't remove any tables. You added your College Football Hall of Fame table AFTER you reverted my edit.
2. I didn't remove any updates. You added them AFTER you reverted my edit.
3. You reverted me. You reverted me with no reason given.
4. What tables were lines removed from?

Bgwhite (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lines have been removed from the All-time record vs. current Pac-12 teams, Pro football hall of fame and super bowl winners, and oregon players currently in the nfl tables. I never claimed to own this page, it is simply a huge pain in my ass when some random person comes along and makes the page worse, causing me to spend hours of my own time fixing their mistakes.Athies22 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would make a good politician or professor. Attack what you don't understand. So far, you've claimed page ownership... stick to editing pages that you have business editing, called everything I did mistakes, blamed me for things I didn't do (remove tables and updates), blamed me for your blind reverts and called me an ass.

I'm sure the 5 seconds it took for you to revert my original post was a pain. You brought this on yourself when you blindly reverted and assumed. Hopefully you will learn from this and not make the same mistake twice....

To add lines to a table, all it takes is to modify one line in each table. I know, hard.

Why I modified the tables. (1) page now loads just over 50% faster by reducing the size, removing redundant table parameters and correcting some bad syntax. (2) Tables are now much simpler to understand and edit. (3) if wanting to change how a table looks, for a majority of things, just change one line instead of multiple of lines. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to revert you, but there has been an open (and forgotten) discussion about this on the talk page that you might have missed and I think it should be discussed before changing. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of you for this, if you have time... ---Esprqii (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards

added a link pointing to Gordon Wilson

Oregon Ducks football

added a link pointing to David Shaw

Oregon Ducks football statistical leaders

added a link pointing to Pat Johnson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oregon Ducks football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl. 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) 09:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Oregon Ducks football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spartan Stadium. 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) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Oregon Ducks football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Washington. 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) 09:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Oregon Ducks football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene. 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) 09:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Oregon Ducks football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Washington. 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) 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnathan Loyd in which you may be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnathan Loyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2007 NCAA Tournament. 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) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Athies22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

• Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
• Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
• Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
• Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

Hello, Athies22. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Erik Chinander has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable college "Defensive coordinator" with Twitter and a "huskers" bio only. Lacks reliable Bio sources. Otr500 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Otr500 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avery Patterson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avery Patterson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]