User talk:IndustryPlantCooper

Welcome!

Hello, IndustryPlantCooper, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome! Have a Pleasent weekend! --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryPlantCooper, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi IndustryPlantCooper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Anachronistic references to Harry Reid Airport before its change to current name?[edit]

On December 25, an IP (2600:1700:ea50:1340:4b3:b:de15:4570) changed several references to the new name of Las Vegas's international airport from "Reid" to "McCarran", specifically on the "History" and "Accidents and Incidents" sections. In early January, however, you changed those "McCarran" references back to "Reid". I'm not sure why you did so, so late on February 26, I changed those same references on that article back to "McCarran". Would some hidden text have helped in the prevention of any edit wars that might stem from a conflict like this? Jim856796 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did so because the name of the airport was changed. Readers at home also might not appreciate seeing the name of a notable anti-semite all over the place following the name change. Let us remember why the name of the airport was changed. The changes I made reflected the name change of the airport and I kept the McCarran name mentioned only where it needed to be mentioned. When a member of the transgender community changes their name, we don't dead name them. I don't refer to my sister before she transitioned as "Then-[deadname]". If I see a photo of her before she transitioned I use her current name. I feel that in the context of this airport, saying "then-McCarran" just reinforces the name of who the airport used to be named after (an anti-semite) when there is no need of justification of that. What is the point of changing a name when we keep re-using the former name? That is why I did what I did. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll appreciate it if you never change those pre-2021 mentions back to "Reid" again. While this is in no way defending the Las Vegas Airport's previous namesake, I changed the "Reid" references in the "History" and "Accidents and Incidents" sections back to "McCarran" because referring to a place by its current name regarding a past event instead of using that place's name that it was under during said past event would constitute an anachronism. Also, I think your reasoning would violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Change those "McCarran" references in those sections back to "Reid" again, and you're risking an edit war, and that'll lead to the Harry Reid International Airport article getting stripped of its GA status. This is why editors sometimes seek a Third Opinion regarding disputes like this. I think saying "then-McCarran" or "now-Harry Reid" is okay if a better solution to a problem like this can't be found.Jim856796 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in an edit war. The changes I made were months ago and for months the changes stood without anyone challenging me over the change. I don't understand why months later it is viewed as being a problem. The name did in fact change, so I changed the names. I don't see how what I did was wrong or bad. I'm not the one who decided to change the name of the airport. But since the name changed, I made changes on the page. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Latin Grammy Award venues[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Latin Grammy Award venues requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 6#Category:Latin Grammy Award venues. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Toohool (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2033 in United States rugby union[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2033 in United States rugby union indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That category was already in a category. Then someone for some reason decided to remove that category and then the page was no longer categorized. Once I fixed that, I removed the tag as it was put in there under false pretense simply because someone overlooked the fact that the category was removed. And that's no one's fault as its a simple thing to overlook. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming it is fine. I have no objection. It's a reasonable compromise. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2033 in Rugby union[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2033 in Rugby union indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics. 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) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request[edit]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

IndustryPlantCooper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Stripedbassfisherman". The reason given for Stripedbassfisherman's block is: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia".

Blocking administrator: ‪Materialscientist‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Well, I suppose your explanation could be true, but unfortunately I don't find it convincing. In fact I had decided to block your account directly, but I have now decided that just letting the autoblock run its course is probably enough. JBW (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several other people do share my IP address, so surely someone else could have started an account and made some edits. Judging by the user name, I kind of can guess who this was. However, I don't really talk to this person and there is no way this person would know that I even have a wiki account nor would they be able to figure out my username or password. I did strike up a brief conversation with this person the other day and I mentioned that I was updating Wikipedia pages related to LA’s new Mayor. This person then went onto a political rant about Karen Bass and then said I was wasting my time on Wikipedia. I can see that based on his edits that mocking Karen Bass was what he did. I can see he also mocked Lizzo. He does like to make sarcastic jokes about people and that’s why I don’t talk to this person that much. Let’s just say me and him don’t see eye to eye on politics… --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you follow the link to the page of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, all those links are verified. Glad to see I made all these informative edits just to have it reverted. I spent at least 45 minutes working on that. But thank you sooooo much for undoing the factual edits I made. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at New Jersey, you may be blocked from editing. The source cited does not support all of your edit. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so adding a source is disruptive? Or maybe only a select group of intellectual elites should get to edit. I hope Musk buys Wikipedia. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Santa Clara, California. The source cited does not support your edit. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have double sourced and even triple sourced those statements. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lumen Field, you may be blocked from editing. Sounder Bruce 04:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really having a hard time understanding how the links I provided were "poorly sourced". The links I included (Which I was told to add by another user) states a fact; the fact that Lumen Field will host matches during the 2026 World Cup. I don't understand these threats to block me when I am actually including sources now, sources that back up facts. One moment I'm told to source what I have posted. So I do. And then it's still considered disruptive even though I did exactly what I am supposed to do. Okay, I accept that statements should be sourced. But why is putting in sources now considered disruptive or not productive. Should I include sources or not? I'm confused. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Miami Gardens, Florida, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Source you provided does not name Hard Rock Stadium as venue. Donald Albury 16:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sports in Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cotton Bowl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was in regard to my first edit. I corrected it and it’s fine now. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lia Thomas. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I included multiples sources, concerning a very real controversy. If this were Harvey Weinstein or the Catholic Church, there would be no question. I included multiples sources, because more than one is better than one. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at the article Talk page, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not one of my high priority sports-related topics I work on, but I'll check it out when I get the chance. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunnyside, Queens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro North.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So allow racism against people from Spain on the article… Wikipedia’s blatant left wing Marxist and socialist values are shining bright. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2028 Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irvine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Olympic venues, category and navboxes[edit]

You have added 2032 Olympic categories and navboxes to many articles, but the articles do not contain any information that supports such categorisation or inclusion in the navbox. You need to add cited content to the article that these venues have been chosen before adding the categories and navboxes. Kerry (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing antisemitism category[edit]

Placing living individual in a category such as an antisemitism one is a WP:BLP problem, as it places a judgment in Wikipedia's voice. Please avoid that in the future. See WP:BLPRACIST for more details. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what category you place these individuals in, their viewpoints are based on left-wing antisemitism. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2030/2034 Winter Olympics[edit]

Hello, please stop your edits relating to these articles. A targeted dialogue is by no means the same thing as a confirmation. The fact that not a single other Wikipedia editor edited the Nice or Salt Lake City articles besides you until I got there speaks volumes about how overenthusiastic your edits were (normally a major event like an Olympic announcement would have dozens of editors editing an article at once). Graham87 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the message above, the source you cited doesn't even mention Nice, and contrary to your edits to that article, the areas of the French Alps that are set to host most of the events per this source are nowhere near that city (about 600 kilometres away per Google Maps). You've shown a staggering level of incompetence in your related editing today, you've previously received strong warnings about misusing sources, and your early edits with this account are highly suspicious for a new user. You are not welcome here. Graham87 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Graham87 (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]