User talk:Cluskillz

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Katr67 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

DYK nomination of Howard Backen
Hello! Your submission of Howard Backen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your review. Unfortunately, I did not have time today and I will not be able to respond until Sunday night or Monday since I will be out of town all weekend. I will respond to your comments as soon as I can. Thanks again. Cluskillz (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts
Nice work on that! Is that your first article? Katr67 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! Yup...it's my very first. Cluskillz (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad Cloepfil
Clusskillz, I took a quick look at the article, made a couple changes per the manual of style. Notability has now been established as there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject with substantial coverage, per the guidelines of WP:BIO. For more improvements, this seems rather architect-centric, try to expand some of the thoughts so us non-architects can better understand. For instance "principal" in the first sentence, I take that he is the principal owner, or just an owner? Also, is there anything more about him personally, such as family (wife/kids) that can expand on the biographical side? Otherwise, great job improving the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Ducks football
With the COTW, it'll get listed this summer when we get closer to the season starting. There tends to be a better turn out for articles if they are in the news/more in the subconscious of editors. But even as a COTW, the already big articles like this generally don't get that much attention. I think people see it as overwhelming sometimes, whereas a small article they can read through real quick and make easy fixes. A task list like you wrote helps direct, but I've done that a few times myself for a COTW with no success. As in I don't think anyone looked at the outline or even edited the article. Possibly people took it as too much direction, versus a collaboration (and with yours it is rather long, so there is an attention span issue I think in the same vane as long articles in general). That said, if you start making improvements, often times that will attract attention and get other editors involved. Start small, maybe just tracking down some citations, split off the UO-UW rivalry to its own page (ala Red River Rivalry), purge info repeated elsehwere and use the template, and other quick fixes. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, in that case I'll start to dink and dunk down the field. I just hope to get some feedback from someone else on some of the things I listed. I don't want to delete large amounts of information (like the statistics section) without someone else agreeing to that direction. Thanks for your input. Cluskillz (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have time, I'll look through the list and the article (it might be a few weeks until after finals though), but be bold and make some changes, as we can always go through the history and revive anything cut, though maybe start small (so I guess be bold, not BOLD). Maybe look through the history and see if any of the past editors are still around as well and check with them. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ducks track and field
Great article. Nice work! --Esprqii (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you should submit a fact from it to WP:DYK. Let me know if I can help. --Esprqii (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks! Um...I'm not familiar with DYK. What do you think is a good fact to nominate? Is it typically just some interesting thing other people might not know? I also asked Pete for input to possibly get it to GA status. You have any thoughts on that? Thanks again. Cluskillz (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For new articles, you submit some interesting fact and it shows up on the Main Page. Gets a lot of views for the article. It can be anything, as long as the specific fact has a citation; but the best ones are ones that are interesting and perhaps surprising; the waffle iron/Nike story is well-known in Oregon, but it might be news to a lot of people, for example.
 * Alright, I went for it. It was kind of weird since the DYK was more specific to Bowerman and he has his own page, but I thought it was the most interesting fact (did think about using the part about Bowerman inspiring the jogging trend but that wouldn't solve the problem). I saw you edited some stuff on the article too. Thanks for your suggestion. We'll see how it goes. Cluskillz (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good one. I added a citation directly after the DYK fact as they are picky about that. --Esprqii (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never submitted a good article nomination, but I think it's a good idea. You might mention the new article on WT:ORE and maybe get a few more eyeballs on it. I gave it a once-over and I'm pretty sure you're in good shape, but I'll try and look it over more critically later. I have heard there is quite a backlog on GA review, so you might as well get that going soon. --Esprqii (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cluskillz, I agree with Esprqii -- really nice effort here! I posted a bit of a review on the article's talk page. Also, I'd echo Esprqii's recommendation that you just use the main WikiProject Oregon talk page to bring up stuff like this -- folks are generally up for looking over a nice new article like this, you don't have to worry about finding a sports-related sub-page. -Pete (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon Ducks track and field
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Oregon Ducks track and field
I have put the article on hold. It really needs quite a bit more work, and I am willing to guide you through the process. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Racepacket, for reviewing the article. I appreciate your offer to guide me through this; I haven't been through a GA process before. Should I make further responses on the article talk page (with indenting like a normal response)? Is there a time limit when these issues need to be addressed? So I am clear, the major points I need to focus on are:
 * 1A
 * 1B: I'm not sure if that is a vote up or down? If down, what do I need to improve on?
 * 2A: Does this mean you have a question on references, or my references are questionable...?
 * 3A: This may take me a bit longer and I may ask for some help on the individual issues you brought up. But I will definitely look into this and see what I can come up with first.
 * Cluskillz (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me assure you that I am on your side and want to work with you to meet the GA criteria. All further "on the record" discussion about the review should be made on the review page Talk:Oregon Ducks track and field/GA1.  I sometimes struggle with the GA templates, so it is a lot harder to get the right grades to appear in the slots than you would think, and as we progress they will all turn to green check marks.  The idea is that I am going to double-check all of your work as best I can to make sure that all sources are used properly and are "reliable."  I have to still check the length of the introduction against the WP:LEAD standard, and will fix the 1B grade accordingly.
 * The GA process is a bit of a mix between a group-written term paper and a PhD dissertation defense. Don't take it personally, and we will get you through this. So long as we are making progress, you can take as long as you would like.  You can look at Talk:Glacier Bay Basin/GA1 to see how a complex article can take a bit of time. Racepacket (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just fyi, I am outlining some stuff in my sandbox. I will probably start writing prose in there as well. Feel free to comment on my direction as I go along. Thanks. Cluskillz (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, congratulations. If you want to discuss the quality of my review, you can go to Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2 and start a new section called ==Outside view by Cluskillz==. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! I'm excited about having passed a GA review. I posted some comments over on that page. Just some of my honest observations. When we first began the review process, I didn't understand why you told me not to take it personally since I didn't think I exhibited that characteristic in my responses. I just let it go then, but now that I read some of that stuff, I think I understand now why you gave that disclaimer. Good luck with it. --Cluskillz (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Oregon Ducks Football
Hi. I recently submitted Oregon Ducks football for a reassessment. It came back as a C-class, but the comments were encouraging and I'd like to get it past B all the way to GA if possible, but I could use some extra eyes. I've ramped up the annotation, removed some ugliness, created separate pages for detail on coaches and venues, etc. If you're still interested in working on this page would you mind taking a look and giving me your thoughts on the recent work? Thanks. Abdoozy (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Got your message. Yes, interested in progressing towards GA, if only to know where the article can be improved. Glad to know the recent changes passed the initial eye test. Thanks again. Abdoozy (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Howard Backen
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Bigger issue regarding revert...
I notice you reverted an edit I made on the list of University of Oregon alumni, specifically regarding Sabrina Ionescu. I apologize if I didn't see it on my talk page... it may be hidden (I know I need to clean it up!) I'm not going to get into a revert war... but I do think this raises a major issue with literally hundreds of categories, specifically relating to college sports.

Currently, all categories in the tree for are subcategories of the master alumni category for each individual institution. For example, is a subcat of.

So... how would we categorize current students, not just for Oregon but also for countless other institutions? Ionescu is indisputably notable on her own as a gold medalist in two FIBA age-grade team competitions, McDonald's All-American, a major positional award winner (Lieberman Award), conference player of the year, first-team All-American, NCAA women's record holder for triple-doubles (shares regular-season record, sole holder of career record), etc. Switching to an institution I'm more familiar with, my undergraduate alma mater of Kentucky, the page for each men's basketball season invariably has active links (not redirects) for five or more current players, given John Calipari's recruiting habits. Duke men's basketball is in much the same situation. Quite a few college football season pages, and some additional pages for teams in other sports, will include active links to one or more current students.

If "alumni" doesn't include current students, would categories have to be created for "Foo students", where "Foo" is the institution in question? (Granted, the number of schools with enough notable current students to keep a category populated isn't that large...) And would categories need to be created for "Current Foo athletes", with the potential of subcats by sport? — Dale Arnett (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I probably should have brought it up elsewhere instead of by reverting. I was adhering to the definition but didn't really consider the application. I agree that Sabrina Ionescu is notable and should have a page; whether she belongs on a list that describes alumni, I don't know. Of course, she inevitably will be on the list eventually and so, the reason I wrote the response the way I did (asking if I was being too pedantic, and not actively removing Ionescu from the list) was to imply that if you wanted to revert your change back into the page, I won't fight you on it. Cluskillz (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)