User talk:67.87.182.58

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Submarine. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (67.87.182.58) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! HopsonRoad (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge Bay and other hamlets in Nunavut
Greetings IP user. I have re-reverted your edit. Please allow me to direct your attention to the official Canadian list of municipalities in Nunavut. According to that document and the 2003 Cities, Towns and Villages Act/2003 Hamlets Act, they are officially hamlets. Unless that legal status has somehow changed, they should not be changed to towns, regardless of what some central place theory says they should be. Regards,  C Thomas3   (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt, but as per geographical standards Cambridge Bay is a town due to its centrality, governmental administration, and services, though technically it remains a hamlet, as per its legal status, which is slow to reflect its growth in population and significance. It could be said that legally it is a hamlet, but actually it is a town, as a seed of governmental administration and services incl. an airport.  People associate hamlets with the middle of nowhere, which Cambridge Bay is not due to its centrality.  My friend lives there and that was the reason for my editing.  My master thesis was in Europe on expansion of the Central Places Theory.  But I am not one who will correct it now, as I do not care anymore or like reverting, which is not constructive, but destroys editorial effort.--67.87.182.58 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I realise that you probably won't see this. Cambridge Bay has been the regional centre of the Kitikmeot Region for a long time and was one in the old Kitikmeot Region, Northwest Territories. Take a look at List of communities in Nunavut where you can see that Rankin Inlet (the regional centre for the Kivalliq Region), Baker Lake, Nunavut and Arviat are all larger than Cambridge Bay but are also hamlets. In fact, other than the city of Iqaluit, everywhere community with a population count in Nunavut is a hamlet In Nunavut has nothing to do with the services available, being the government centre. According to Cities, Towns and Villages Act, which was amended from the original NWT act, states on page 5 that
 * "(3) The assessed value of all assessable land in the municipality must exceed
 * (a) $10,000,000 for the municipal corporation to be established as a village,
 * (b) $50,000,000 for the municipal corporation to be established as a town, and
 * (c) $200,000,000 for the municipal corporation to be established as a city, unless the Executive Council recommends to the Minister that an exception be made."
 * So you can see that we are not called a hamlet just because of some bureaucratic oversight but a legal one. The central place theory may work well in Europe where places have be around a lot longer than in the Arctic. For example, Cambridge Bay is only 99 years old. By the way the idea that it has airport is important isn't true as there are no roads into Nunavut or connecting hamlets. So Grise Fiord, the smallest hamlet with 129 people, has Grise Fiord Airport. Hope your friend is enjoying living here. I've been here since 1994 and really like it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, the legal classification of Cambridge Bay, as a hamlet, was never in doubt, but the definitions of hamlet, village, town, and city are geographical and not Canadian legal. The Central Place Theory is geographical and applicable everywhere, as the only one of its kind and grasping the essence of the concentration of population in settlements.  It best describes the nature of Cambridge Bay and in a clear and understandable way for readers regardless of their familiarity with Canadian law not that many English-speaking people care about.  Communism legally claims that it is the best when everyone earns the same amount of money regardless of effort or productivity.  Be my guest and describe Cambridge Bay anyway you want, as the purpose and application of normalization (statistics) seems foreign to you.  Give my regards to Michal Lozowski.--67.87.182.58 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the central place theory
Greetings IP,

The reason I reverted your edits is not that I don't think the central place theory should be referenced at all, but that we shouldn't be stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if it were the final authority in the matter. I have no trouble with wording such as "According to the central place theory by ...., ...", and it should just be added as additional information to the common definition, not replace it. Does the difference make sense?  C Thomas3   (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I never removed anything from the articles, but only enriched them. They are not place to discuss the omnipotence of the theory, as its significance is undisputed, as there is not that much more on the subject.  My expression "in the C. P. Theory" means exactly the same as "according to...", but shorter.  The theory is easy to grasp visually, simple to understand, and thus on the level of Wikipedia.  The articles are very poorly written and do not define the subject matters not mentioning their leads, which should do it alone.  They are terrible.  The key to the definition of a town is its centrality.  City is just a large town.  A village does not have centrality.  None of that is now written.  The boundary of a settlement is almost irrelevant, but it exists due to the legal status of a town related to the ownership of properties and other aspects, such as taxation, military in the past, communal, infrastructure, etc.  But the key is centrality.  All the articles are yours now.  Good luck with their editing.--67.87.182.58 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that we have apparently chased you away from Wikipedia, and I truly apologize for my part in that. I appreciate that you clearly have expertise that you wish to bring to these articles and if you are amenable I am happy to help you do so in such a way that would meet the community's norms and not be reverted. It is not the easiest thing to contribute here, but I can help you learn how. The community very much values discussion; we even have a process we call bold, revert, and discuss – someone makes a bold edit (like you), but someone else doesn’t agree and reverts it. The idea then is that the two editors discuss the proposed change to come up with wording that is acceptable to both. It's clearly not fun to be reverted, but it doesn't mean what you've added is unacceptable; it just means that at least one person wants to discuss it first before it gets added. It is not the only way we operate here, but it is a very common one.If you are interested, you might consider creating an account; there are many benefits of doing so (see here) but one side benefit is that named editors do tend to be taken more seriously in general; it shouldn't be this way, of course, but unfortunately this is how it often is. I hope you reconsider your departure, but if not, thank you for your contributions and best of luck to you wherever you go.  C Thomas3   (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not new to WP. The bold, revert, and discuss method is very inefficient and time consuming.  It is tailored to people with uneven knowledge where some teach others who eventually agree to some sort of consensus.  What, if they do not, as the matter is too difficult to understand?  And those are very significant disadvantages of the method basically unacceptable for me.
 * More than 10 years ago I was co-editing articles about microprocessors following my [[CADD]} managerial experience. Everybody was competent, adding what he wanted, changing what everybody else wrote, but nobody reverted a single thing.  People did not understand everything others added, but thanks to improvements in clarity eventually everybody got everything. I was mainly compressing by removing duplications and shaping the leads.  Within just a few days we added many pages to many articles.  I introduced a power consumption as the main factor of processor advantage and essential aspect in the intro.  Eventually I created an informal template for article intro on microprocessors followed by other editors by silent consensus and without a single word of discussion except in the edit comment.  Traces of it still remain and can be recognized.
 * Eventually I got tired of reverts and invitations to discussions. The Central Place Theory is not criticized for being wrong, but only for being simple and not explaining every location, but it applies to centrality of stations on 1-dimensional trade roots, distribution of ports, etc., though areas of services are not necessarily hexagonal.  It is widely regarded and in every serious textbook on the subject and nobody denies its significance despite being not perfectly applicable everywhere.  Nevertheless, centrality is present in every location, though often distorted, as researched by August Lösch in the 1930s in the USA.  I am from the area of then southern Germany described by Walter Christaller where in the main interuniversity library was a copy of the 1st edition of Lösch's fundamental work.  I was the 4th person who borrowed a copy of it from the Columbia University library in 20-year span, so "popular" it was.  You could restore my last edits and modify, as you please, because I do not have time to discuss.  Good luck.--67.87.182.58 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Francis Ford Coppola. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I remember hearing such a statement in TV from one of major film critics, but I could not find it now on the Internet to support it. Next time I will search Internet for a reference before adding fun facts into Wikipedia.  Fun facts may be even more interesting than boring facts, and thus more constructive than the latter and not constitute vandalism, as per WP:VD, as NOT "intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose".  It is only your personal opinion that the edit was nonconstructive.  Said film critic made such a statement to emphasize how thorough Coppola was in his script and that pretty constructive.  It was just said concisely and indirectly.  Apparently, it might be not your "cup of tea".  Well, "de gustibus non est disputandum".--67.87.182.58 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)