That is not the name of ULL's teams, which is why I continue to change it. Until it's officially changed, I'll continue to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geauxruston (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pncomeaux. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Because in one of your edit summaries you said "our official name..." leads me to believe you are at a conflict of interest by being affiliated with Louisiana-Lafayette. Chat? 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Corky | Chat? 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Corky | Chat? 18:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan 17:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Corkythehornetfan 18:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Pncomeaux. I wanted to drop you a note to remark on what you might've already noticed, which is that I've removed several instances from articles where you've introduced the branding efforts of ULL into various articles alongside the mention of the school and its athletic program. As I've noted at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, Wikipedia isn't a tool for or extension of a school or other organization's PR or marketing departments, and for that reason these "rebranding" efforts really aren't the proper subject for coverage in various articles. If the school wants to rebrand itself, that's fine, but the way it'll be referred to in Wikipedia follows the guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. I ask that you contribute to the discussion there, focusing on the substance of the arguments, and relevant Wikipedia policies. (I'm a northerner and have no stake in the various ULL / LSU / LTU squabbles - don't even understand them.) If you gain a consensus to add the branding commentary back into the articles, then feel free to restore what I've removed; but in the meantime please let it be. Thanks, and see you at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns. JohnInDC (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Hey John:[reply]

1. I disagree with your assertion that this is a 'branding effort' by the school. I excepted that excuse as a compromise, but feel that although it might not be the common name, the actual name of the teams of ULL are in fact the 'Louisiana Ragin Cajuns,' or the stand-alone reference of 'Louisiana.'
2. What happened to consensus building, prior to reverting edits? Why have you unilaterally determined that the offical name if the school should removed from articles?Pncomeaux (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for replying here and for your comments at the other Talk page. I've responded there to everything and think we should continue there. Separately, as for my reversions of your edits, I made them because yours were recent, across-the-board additions that do not seem consistent with WP:COMMONNAME, and which are as such unnecessary clutter in articles that aren't even about ULL. I really don't think there's much room for debate there, though I'd of course acquiesce if consensus turned out to be otherwise. I also hoped that because I come to this discussion as a neutral & disinterested editor, you might be more inclined to accept the edits as matters of Wikipedia policy rather than as the work of someone with some axe to grind. Thanks again for the discussion and I hope to continue to engage with you. JohnInDC (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, It isn't "rebranding" if Louisiana's own conference, the Sun Belt Conference claims that Louisiana-Lafayette can now be called Louisiana or Louisiana's Seanmyers2004 (talk)10:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.202.96 (talk) [reply]

Not vandalism

On a related topic of your edit summary in a revert at Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, please note that bold edits by others that you disagree with are not necessarily vandalism, especially if there is not an obvious intent to harm Wikipedia. Characterizing them as such is considered disruptive. You can refer to WP:NOTVAND for more details. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you intend to resume your WP:Disruptive Editing. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your edits have been reverted per consensus on Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns#characterization of the non WP:COMMONNAME(s). UW Dawgs (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive editing. There is no need to use 'Louisiana-Lafayette' when it's already established which team is being referenced.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User talk:UW Dawgs.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why it is so very necessary to include 'Louisiana-lafayette' HAS to be used in this instance???? It was already established why school is being discussed, so using it is redundant and poor grammar.

If you think the current phrasing is awkward or otherwise unsuitable you should take it up at the article Talk page and see what other editors think! JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so why is he allowed to make changes without having to 'talk' about it first.....like I am required to do? And even if I am right, like I am in this case, it is a certainty that my edit will not be allowed to stand.Pncomeaux (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extended discussion about the terms to be used to refer to the school and its athletic teams at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns. Your edits appeared to be inconsistent with the consensus there and that's why they were reverted. When that happens, you - or the other editor - should open discussion at Talk. Whether you find agreement or not, at least you are discussing it. If you don't discuss it at all, and keep reverting, then you're not having a discussion about substance but rather are edit warring and that will lead to a block. I guess what I'm saying is that, if you are making good points then by raising them you at least stand a chance of persuading other editors. You may not succeed, which is disappointing, but is a better outcome than neither succeeding and being blocked! JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, was he also given the same and equal 'warnings' that I received? Why did he not need to discuss in 'talk' the edits that he made prior to making his edits, or reversing mine? His original statements were poorly written and redundant: it not only repeated the school's name twice, but also the part of 'New Orleans Bowls.' Your final edit is much cleaner. But why are you allowed to make the change to both his edit and mine, without discussing first? Also, his edit had nothing to do with the 'consensus.' Does the 'consensus' require that 'Louisiana-Lafayette' be used in each and every sentence? Even when naming the school is not necessary? Because that's what he was doing.Pncomeaux (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it looks to me. You have a history of propagating a particular way of talking about the school and its athletic teams in a way that isn't consistent with Wikipedia policies or consensus. You have backed off that quite a bit (which I notice and appreciate) but because of your prior single-mindedness on this issue, other editors tend to view your edits to the ULL pages with a bit of skepticism. So when you made changes to the ULL football page 1) without and edit summary and 2) with a typo, other editors may conclude (fairly or unfairly) that you have just started up again with this naming thing. UWDawgs at least gave a reason in his edit summary for what he did. When you responded by reverting him, then twice more without comment or any attempt at discussion, it makes you look like you really don't care about that basic Wikipedia practice. In the best world, he'd have opened a Talk page discussion - but he didn't, and your complete silence on the issue in light of all that went before made you look obstinate rather than constructive.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here or point fingers, but rather just trying to answer your questions honestly, and help you understand. Take things to Talk. Even if it seems like a losing proposition. If you go to Talk, and make your case - maybe you prevail, maybe you don't. If you prevail, great, but if you don't and just move on to the next thing, then people will come to understand that you're not here for you, but for the encyclopedia, and in the future they are likely to cut you a bit more slack in the future. Is this helpful? Again I'm not trying to cast blame but just offer a bit of explanation and advice in the hope that it helps you. JohnInDC (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Crash Underride. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My post on his page was on the content of his post....and was much more respectful than the name calling that he HE has done to to SEVERAL other editors on his talk page. If anyone needs reigning in it is that guy.Pncomeaux (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, please tell me, when did I call anyone an idiot? Oh, that's right, I didn't you called me that on MY talk page. So, yeah, there's that. (I know you'll just remove this...again). ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section header was obviously not. Please reign it in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I believe that the sports team should be Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns and I have no affiliation with the state or the university. Unfortunately, we live in a bizarre world where trademarked names are ignored on Wikipedia...and in case of the Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns that will likely not change since "consensus" was reached a couple of years ago changing the nameG. Capo (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pncomeaux. 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]

Hello, Pncomeaux. 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]

Please stop moving ULL pages until a consensus can be reached – a consensus was reached to move ULL's sub articles with a couple of users saying 2017–future.. I disagree with anything before the 2017–18 season as this was when the WP:COMMONNAME was established. I have started a discussion here that I encourage to you to comment on before moving any other articles. Corky 23:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As requested:

• Talk:Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns#Nickname

Because what I mentioned in the second to last sentence: the WP:COMMONNAME wasn't established until late 2017. Pretty simple. Most media articles read "Louisiana–Lafayette" pre 2017... Corky 23:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, the simple fact that you're only changing inline text rather than doing a Requested Move is a problem. Either move the page so the title changes or don't, this is part of the issue I see with the edits you've made on Ragin' Cajuns pages all along. Billcasey905 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UL

Thanks for your prompt reply. However, when I see this from UCO2009bluejay, also from the same talk page, it makes me doubt why there is now a "2017-2017 Academic year" proscription on this matter:

"...only 2017 and later articles should say Louisiana and pre 2017 should remain ULa-La (and NE or SW whatever it was) Louisiana."

Besides the rude and dismissive tone of this entry, I otherwise do not see any verbiage on it, or any of the other entries of the consensus that limit the usage, other than stating 2017 and forward. The year that this article deals with is the 2017-2018 baseball season, which clearly falls within that agreed upon timeframe.

But I am no means an expert: is there some kind of formal "consensus" entry that deals with the specificity of exactly when to use the current name or not? Barring that, I will move the article as per your request. I was actually going to do that today, but was waiting to see if there were any obejections to my changes before doing so.

When I posted that I meant 2017-18 school year, specifically because I deal primarily with football articles. You have had a history of promoting "Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns" over objections of many editors who claimed that Louisiana-Lafayette was the established commonname. Of which I was one of the "objectors" to that term until the project agreed that beginning with the 2017-18 year to switch to Louisiana. I came around when WP:Commonname became established on Wikipedia in the Fall 2017. So I don't support the moving of 2016-17 baskeball, 2017 baseball etc. Feel free to set up a move request if you want. I don't think you'll get your desired result, but it is better than the alternative. Also please sign your name there is even a button for it.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to come off as rude or dismissive. However, this has been going on for a long time and personally I'm tired of it. If that came through as rude and dismissive, I apologize. I did, however, offer you the proper way to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish, while pointing out that I (and I believe many others) disagree with your reading of the consensus. This article (2017 baseball) actually addresses the baseball team for the 2016-17 academic year, and so my stance is that this predates the adjustment of the common name, which was established during the 2017 football season. Billcasey905 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are a WP:SPA and all, for ULL. And none of us bat 1.000 but try to be Civil in your discussions on wikipedia. Calling something "idiotic vandalism" is ridiculous,[1] even more so because your edits for the longest time were considered vandalism. Yes, I agree that the edits were vandalism but there are better ways to go about this. I've been trout slapped myself a few times.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, maybe this would have some crediblility if you weren't being so snarky yourself. The vandalism is INDEED "ridiculous" when it is coming from somone who is an obvious hater of the school and who quotes a "ridiculous" and irrelevant "law" as the reason why they are making the edits. It is very frustrating to see this/these individuals do no other 'edits' other than vandalizing the UL pages. Did you check the user's contributions??? And not just this one, but of all the others who continue to vandalize these articles...like "geauxruston?" But yes, my comment in reversing their vandalism is what the issue is. Carry on.

:You take everything too personally. I am trying to help you in your discussions because stuff like that to people unfamiliar with these discussions makes you look bad. Keep in mind I am telling you that you were correct in your revision, but the tone can hurt your credibity (with editors outside CFB circles) in future discussion if a possible move request back to ULL ever ensues. (I again, am speaking from experience on this.)--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pncomeaux. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Specifically:

• Your text: "An offer was extended to play ULM in the Independence Bowl, but this was turned down"[2]
• Your cite: Conflicting statements of 1) Louisiana Tech was offered a bid Saturday to play Louisiana-Monroe," an Independence Bowl official told ESPN. "They turned it down." and 2) Nobody turned a bowl bid down," he said. "We asked for more time to vet two other opportunities that we had that we felt good about."[3]

• Your text: "...as they were waiting for 'other options.'" (why are there two apostophes?)
• Your cite: The phrase "other options" does not appear.

• Your text: "No other options came along, which meant that the season ended without a bowl appearance."

Please ensure your edits reflect the citation and basic grammar as was previosly noted.[4] UW Dawgs (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not entirely sure what this article is supposed to be about either.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Pncomeaux/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Pncomeaux/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering^(t) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pncomeaux! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Whispering(t) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer: this would not be a stand-alone article at this time. It is meant to supplement an existing article on the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Louisiana_at_Lafayette

Also, I have seen a similar section is added on most university's articles, including one for La Tech, which even also has a separate article devoted to "Traditions"....as well as separate articles numerous other subjects. None of them appear unbiased, it should be noted. Were those articles also subjected to approval? Using the same standards as the one I submitted? If you read through the articles for LTU I would be very curious to see if you note any bias in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Tech_University#Traditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditions_of_Louisiana_Tech_University

Is it really necessary to have a separate article on LTU's mascot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_(mascot)

Or this rather long article of it's "notable" people? Do all of these folks seem to be "notable" to you guys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Louisiana_Tech_University_people Pncomeaux (talk)

(talk page stalker) The people on the LTU people article all pass notability and have pages just like this article. I am not going to comment on the traditions element. But I would ask a question at Talk:University of Louisiana at Lafayette.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, agreed about the notable people pages. However, really not sure why you do not want to comment on the traditons element? Of either school?Pncomeaux (talk)

You could start with in-line citations.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not typically stated that way in the title field of the infobox, it is in the coaching history list and the first sentence of the article. I’m not going to fight with you over it but you reverted about 10 other edits when you could have just put “interim” back in. Rikster2 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be typical, but it is factually accurate that he is the Interim Head Coach. As far as removing your other other edits, I was wrong to do that and apologize. I have also fixed the article. Pncomeaux (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bernard Schwartz House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Two Rivers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Contributor321. Your recent edit(s) to the page University of Louisiana at Lafayette appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Contributor321. I noticed that you made one or more edits to an article, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, concerning the updates of review statistics, box office numbers, sports statistics, or some other frequently updated data with a fixed web address, but you did not update the |access-date= parameter in the citation template. The |access-date= parameter is the full date when the content pointed to by the URL was last verified to be working and supporting the text being cited in the article. This means that the parameter needs to be updated whenever the content is updated. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Yvette Girouard Field at Lamson Park. Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frank042316. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonathan Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Cypress Lake3.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Cypress Lake3.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 11:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Cypress Lake2.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Cypress Lake2.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 11:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:McNaspy Stadium.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:McNaspy Stadium aerial view.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm just opening this here to let you know my thought process behind my edits; Looking through former players from ULL, I noticed a lot of inconsistency in how the school/team is noted in infoboxes, and a vast majority had their college/team noted as Louisiana-Lafayette, so it seemed appropriate to change the ones I noticed that differed from this. I'm not going to go change any others in this category, but I wanted to bring to your attention that on this [1|this page differ from your assertion of what they should be, just in case you wanted to go through and change them. The only other thing I will say is, it is fundamental to assume good faith from all editors, so please accept my apology and understand that I was acting in good faith when I made those edits, and vandalism shouldn't be assumed unless it is obvious. Either way, my apologies and cheers! Spf121188 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I read that page you posted on my talk page after you included it in your edits, but I appreciate the addition (truly, I'm not being sarcastic.) which is why I haven't continued to find other players who differed from this. Happy editing and cheers, Spf121188 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Please understand the history of this: there are a couple of schools in Louisiana that refuse to accept the "Louisiana" name for UL, and will from time-to-time vandalize the school's pages. It seems that you are not one of those editors, and no doubt did not realize the entire history behind it.

All I ask is that you make edits in the future that it complies with the consensus that has been reached in regards to the issue.

Thanks again and I wish you well.

Totally understood! Much appreciated, and cheers as always! Spf121188 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Spf121188 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank,

Your edits on Ted Prior were strange to me. You added a citation for his birthdate, which didn't include it. Also regarding his Playgirl work, you added a citation from IMDb. IMDb is not an acceptable citation and it doesn't mention the event.

Now when I originally worked on the page I thought it was some sort of troll, but it is true. It seems that it is something that he did once in passing, and even if it was found that he posed for more erotic magazines, he is not known for that, and that is not why he has a Wiki page. He is a notorious b movie actor.

Hence adding his chippendale and playgirl stuff in the lede, is not appropriate. The subject probably doesn't want to google his name for this stuff to pop up.

No big deal, thought I'd let you know. Filmman3000 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've figured this out by now, Filmman3000, but this user doesn't reply to talk pages messages. Never has. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 18:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]