User talk:GPelly-Bosela

If you have come to this page, then you will also want to read the essay that is located at http://howwecanheal.blogspot.com

GPelly-Bosela 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Populous(term of measurement)

A tag has been placed on Populous(term of measurement), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. dethme0w 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Populous(term of measurement)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Populous(term of measurement), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, GPelly-Bosela, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Populous(term of measurement)

You appear to be getting very annoyed on the page Talk:Populous(term of measurement).

I can see why: you're a new editor and Wikipedia's ways must seem brutal to you!

If you've found this page (your talk page), you'll have found the two sections above, that told you about the deletion of your article.

The reason your article was deleted boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You saw a word and attempted to define it; but this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the article get deleted (there's a bit more to it than that, but that's what it comes down to in the end).

You were informed in advance about the deletion, using the only method we have - this page. We can't email authors to let them know - it's not practical. Remember, hundreds of articles are created every hour and many of them get deleted.

Now for some good news! Wikipedia has a sister project: Wiktionary! Whilst Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is. So where you have an undefined word that doesn't meet encyclopedia standards for an article, you can link to its entry on Wiktionary like this:

wikt:Populous

You can even cloak the link like you do with other links, like this:

populous

(that's [[wikt:Populous|populous]] if you want to see exactly how it's done)

And if the word doesn't exist on Wiktionary? Well, it's the free dictionary anybody can edit. You just go there, create the word's entry, come back here and link it as shown above.

Now, again, I'm sorry you were offended by the editing and deleting. But it's what we do. All material submitted to Wikipedia is subject to editing (and even deletion). Ruthlessly. That suits some people (me, of instance - I like having my work edited) but annoys the becheeses out of others (you might fall into that category).

Your article, being a dictionary definition ("dicdef" in our jargon - this happens often enough for us to use jargon about it) will be deleted again shortly under our criteria for speedy deletion - criterion A1, if you want to look it up.

But don't be disheartened! This happens to all of us here at one time or another. Keep on adding, editing and contributing - we need you! ➔ This is REDVEЯS 10:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi George, welcome to Wikipedia. Since I was but one of several people who removed your addition to the Chicago article I am a little surprised you took the time to write this to me in particular. Anyway, there are several things you need to learn about Wikipedia, so I will try to help. Your repeated addition of the "latitude" section violates one of our most important policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Please read this page carefully, as you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this encyclopedia, which is not to publish original thought that has not been published elsewhere. Since you were unable to provide proof that your addition was already published by a reliable source, it was rightly removed.

In the future, please try to be a little more respectful when discussing things with other editors. It is your first day, though, and I know it must seem a little frustrating to see your first contributions deleted. Also, you should post messages on user talk pages and not actual user pages, and you may sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Again, welcome. shoeofdeath 04:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on where to post messages, and for the welcome.

I plan to read the guidelines that you sent me a link for, soon. Maybe I did go a little too far in criticizing you. But I do not feel that I was disrespectful toward you. (maybe blunt, but not disrespectful). If I said anything powerfully, this is only because I believe that thing strongly. I do strongly believe that you would be much better off, if you changed your username. Whatever, though. Even if you don’t, I still hope to work with you.

The coordinates for both the cities I spoke of, have been published in many sources. All I did was subtract these numbers, and compare the result to other results. It’s flattering that you cal this original research, but when the coordinates for both cities are published by the same source, then I believe that the difference between these coordinates is also published by implication.

You still haven’t sent me a link to a better source for the information I want to provide to Wikipedia readers. (And this is what I am most hoping you will do). After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort.

(Actually I think that the source I used is fine. I think that recognizing that it provides good information, (especially If one double checks against Wikipedia, as I did), would show that Wikipedia is cool enough to look beyond superficial traits. After all people who believe astrology, want to make good decisions too. So except when doing so conflicts with their beliefs, they will try to find good information, just as we all will. – But if you and other people don’t like this source, then I’ll be happy to use any source that you send me a link to.).

While many people other than you , also deleted my posts. Each post of mine was a little different, as I tried to change this post to meet demands that were being made of me. And you deleted the last and best version of this post. And you also made comments in describing your actions, that I wanted to respond to. Btw, I have also written to some of the other people who deleted my posts.

Many people would benefit from a collaborative analysis of geographical relationships between different places in our world. For most of my life, even I thought that Rome was well south of Chicago, because I knew that Rome was much warmer than Chicago. We have to find a way to start a discussion on the geographical relationship between different places. I’m all for trying to do this, while avoiding original research, (after all I like to avoid work as much as the next man) , and I believe that we can do this. What is most important, though, is that we find a way to start this discussion. And if this discussion occurs on Wikipedia, then I think that would be great.

 	           George Pelly-Bosela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GPelly-Bosela gpelly.bosela@gmail.com

Btw, here's the post of mine that was deleted.

Latitude

Downtown Chicago is located 100.1 geographical degrees due east of downtown Rome. (according to measurements taken to the nearest tenth of a geographical degree) ^[1]. No other pair of cities, each of which, is as populous as, or more populous than, each of these cities, is as close in latitude as these cities are to each other. Being located at the same latitude, tells us that on any date, two places will experience the same amount of time between sunrise and sunset. Often two places at the same latitude, will also experience similar temperatures. This is not so in this case, because Rome, (like nearly all European cities), is warmed by the North Atlantic Gulf Stream, (in a similar effect to that felt by all Northern Hemisphere lands located on the Northeastern edge of large oceans, and by all Southern Hemisphere lands located on the Southwestern edge of large oceans. An effect that is caused by the oval shaped motion of currents in our world’s oceans), and because Chicago is not warmed by any oceanic current. GPelly-Bosela 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did overreact to your username before.

It does still bother me, but not nearly as much as it did then. Being extremely tired, exacerbated my feelings.

I do understand the desire to maintain continuity in usernames, and I know that even if you would rather now change this name, you might also want to keep it for this reason. Just remember that this reasoning could go on forever, and could lead you to keep this username for the rest of your life. If you ever want to change your username - the sooner, the better. You could change it and still maintain a level of continuity by choosing a related username. The name “Newshoe”, is the first one that comes to mind. (And if you want to, you could explain the reasons for your change to some friends). I think that doing this would be even better than choosing a completely different username, because it would symbolize personal growth, and in a sense personal rebirth: - becoming a bright and shining New Shoe, (cleansed of the blood that must cover the sole of any shoe of death).

Maybe your original choice of your current username was inspired by some silly comedy skit similar to Python’s giant foot drawings, but it is important to remember that even if we find these drawings funny, we do so in part because they are so unreal. A real giant foot of death, or shoe of death, would be terrifying. For this reason your username conveys a very violent and threatening image. Maybe this is what you wanted to do. There are times when we all want to appear this way, (I know that when I am frightened, I want to appear this way). But this desire is the greatest source of conflict and wars in our world. What starts almost as a kind of play acting, soon leads to conflicts that couldn’t be more real. This name has probably contributed to conflicts you have had in the past, (though the feelings it caused in other people, were probably expressed in other ways. If I were not so tired before, I also may have said nothing about this name. Maybe it’s a good thing that I did, though.).

George Pelly-Bosela

gpelly.bosela@gmail.com GPelly-Bosela 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)[reply]

Placement of information

In general, high profile pages like Chicago tend suffer from editors who want to include everything known about the topic on the page. But high profile pages need to only mention the most essential information, and provide links to subtopics so people who are interested can click on them. The average Wikipedia user might look at the Chicago page for its population, the name of its mayor, what its major universities are, and similar information. I personally removed the little known Dominican University from the Chicago page because is so insignificant. The fact that Rome-and-Chicago-are-at-the-same-latitude-but-Rome-is-warmer is mentioned in Chicago elementary school classes on geography, and may well be mentioned in Roman grade schools. It is interesting to me, but since there is a link to Geography of Chicago on the Chicago page, the information can go there.

Anyway, once one starts editing Wikipedia, one discovers that many people have an opinion about what you typed, and they express their opinions by changing what you typed. That's how Wikipedia works. I'll take a look at what you typed, and I may change it, but that doesn't mean I didn't like what you typed. Speciate 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that somebody deleted your information from the Geography of Chicago page. I never knew that the downtowns of Chicago and Rome were at exactly the same latitude, that's cool. The problem is your claim that no other major cites on Earth have the same closeness. You need to find a reputable internet source that says that. Speciate 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have patience, and keep looking for a source. Perhaps all that is needed is a source that lists all the major cities in the world by latitude and longitude. Wikipedia has such a list, List of cities by latitude, take a look at the sources that page uses. Speciate 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to do a series of small edits to articles that interest you, rather than concentrating on one thing. Surely there are some articles about local places you know well. Once you have experienced the satisfaction of improving Wikipedia without any conflict with other editors, then maybe you can revisit the latitude business. Speciate 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latitudes

I noticed your comment in Chicago about its comparison to Rome in latitudes, and then mention of the different climates and relation to the Gulf Stream. This is incredibly obscure for an article about the city of Chicago. Next we mention the cities at the same altitude, mention the cities at the same longitudes, mention cities with the same average temperature. It's trivia and nothing more. This is not the place for it. If, however, you wanted to use latitude comparisons of Chicago and Rome as an example of the effect of the Gulf Stream, it wouldn't be out of place to mention this in the Gulf Stream article.--Loodog 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Errors

See WP:ERRORS.--74.13.129.143 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People from Chicago

I was just informing him that the consensus on Wikipedia was to call everyone "People from...." for convenience in the names of categories. Speciate (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not so into editing these days. As for the "people from" thing, all that can be done is to make sure that redirects exist to lead users to a good place. For example, I just created San Franciscans to redirect to San Francisco, California#Demographics. Speciate (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I check in from time to time. Speciate 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Astrodienst Atlas Query". Astrodienst. 2007, Oct. 2. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] "Astrodienst Atlas Query". Astrodienst. 2007, Oct. 2. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]