User talk:Gellersen

Welcome!

'''Hi,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''Welcome to Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopaedia that anyone can edit! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We'll certainly be looking forward for your contributions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:'''


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikiquette

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. And, the most important thing: Have fun! Sarg (Talk)

Columbine H.S.
Columbine H.S. is not in a city or a town, it is in the unincorporated sprawl surrounding Denver and part of Denver's metropolitan area. Describing the high school as near Denver misses the relationship between the houses surrounding the high school and their occupants and the city itself. -Acjelen 18:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am very aware that Columbine is not in a city or town; in fact, I was the one that originally made corrections to various Wikipedia articles that indicated that the school is "in Littleton". Bear in mind that *this* article is about a crime, not about the high school itself. The article on Columbine High School provides an exhaustive description of the school's location and its "relationship" to its surroundings. Gellersen 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For many people, the geography of the high school is very important to understanding the crime and those it affected. I don't see how "near Denver" is any different or better than "in the Denver metropolitan area" or why Denver should be listed before Littleton. -Acjelen 21:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I *am* one of those people for whom geography is very imporant to understanding the crime; hence, I made a point to change all of the articles that indicated that it occurred "in Littleton". It is not customary to give locations in terms of metropolitan areas, i.e. one does not write that the Colorado State Capitol is in the "Denver-Aurora metropolitan area" (which is, nevertheless, completely true) but rather that it is located in "Denver". The phrase "near Denver" is used here to provide context to the many readers who are not familiar enough with Colorado to know that Jefferson County is adjacent to Denver, and Denver should be listed before Littleton because Denver is the nearest incorporated municipality to the school's site, with the Littleton city limits being second closest (normally it would be superfluous to indicate a second-closest city, but in this case it really needs to be, because so many are under the false impression that the school is located *in* Littleton, rather than outside of it but in a ZIP code for which "Littleton" is the default place name).

Again, for the purposes of *this* article, it should be enough to indicate a city and state for the school's location. Since it isn't within any city, the construction "unincorporated X county near Y city" is used. Since "Z city" is so popularly associated with the school's location, the construction then becomes "unincorporated X county near Y and Z cities". Adding neighborhood A, census-designated place B, country C, continent D, planet E - or metropolitan area F, for that matter - begins to make things unnecessarily verbose. Gellersen 22:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that there are others who prefer the metropolitan area listing. Frankly, I don't care how it's written as long as it's there, but there are other users who prefer listing it as in the denver-aurora metropolitan area so there's a possibility that it might be changed again by another user. When I originally rewrote this article and made it featured with the help of several contributors, it was written the way you're trying to put it now but some others thought it a better idea to put the D-A Metro part since they thought it too specific the way I had placed it. Since then, several users have been reverting it back to near denver and littleton (etc...), and it's been going back and forth ever since... so just be aware that it might be changed yet again (and again and again). PRueda29 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooops
My apologies... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
Regarding your edit about englih been taught as a second and not foreign language. while it is true that english is one fo the official languages of the island, which is more of apolitical issue than a language issue, the truth is that the language is not taught as a second language, i.e. as if puert o ricans had continuos contact with it, but as a foreign language, i.e. there is no continuous ocntact andit is not spoken by a significant number of puerto ricans. So that is the reason why i kept it as been taught as a foreign language and not a second language. It has nothing to do with it been official. For example, in Lousiana schools french is taught as a foreign language, eventhough it is an official language of Lousiana. Cjrs 79 20:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A Couple of comments: First when you want to write a comment to a user in wikipedia you should do it in the talk page and no their user page. Second, I am not talking about what english is in Puerto Rico, but on the way it is taught, and it is a fact that it is taught as a foreign language. There are differences on how a foreign language and a second laguage are taught, and like it or not, english is taught as a foreign language. I think your other comments are irrelevant to the discussion. Puerto Rico is part of the USA, not a foreign country, but you wouldn't argue that, for example, the widespread possesion and use of guns is FOREIGN to puerto rican culture, eventhough it is very common in american culture. One last comment, you are right, english and french are de facto language of lousiana not official, but the law gives them equal status by saying that official documents might be written in both languages.

Finally, you should always sign your comments. Cjrs 79 13:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to say... I agree with you. Puerto Rico should have a state infobox, or maybe we could create a "territory" infobox. I think that would solve the problem. What do you think?Cjrs 79 01:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So, can we create an infobox for territories? or do we have to go through some voting process? do you know? I do believe we could keep population ranking, or maybe alter the country info box instead.. I think there are many options we can discuss. But indeed the country infobox is just wrong.Cjrs 79 04:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

SFO part of San Francisco or San Mateo?
Let's discuss here SFO part of San Francisco or San Mateo? --Will74205 08:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Philadelphia

 * Wow, some one who actually seems to see that there is a difference . --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Chat
Hi Gellersen, How you doing? You know, I think that the best thing would be to create a new infobox for territories, commonwealths and such. I mean the whole discussion really has to do with the proper use of the infobox. Denvoron, I have nothing against you, you do make valid points, I guess it all depends on the perspective of the issue. No, I don't hate English, it is my first language, however it just isn't even an official language in the United States (by law) or in some states, for ex. Arizona, that's all. Another thing Puerto Rico was a nation with it's own language, customs, traditions, political structure, currency and autonomy in 1898 when it was invaded even though it wasn't independent. Yes, once a Marine always a Marine. However, I realize that the real issue is about the infobox more then anything. Any thoughts?. Tony the Marine 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. I know that you didn't mean to offend me (No offense taken), I didn't mean to offend you either).

Regarding Louisville, Kentucky
Hey Gellersen,

First of all, I would like to THANK YOU for for keeping this and other articles as very accurate as possible, especially when it comes to the Louisville-Jefferson County issue. One thing I need your help is the anon. IP's who are vandalizing the article. I think is the same person but the trouble with anons. is that's very difficult to tell. Since I'm not an admin, the only thing I could do is to post warnings on their talk pages, otherwise, they'll likely be blocked due to their vandals on other articles. Anyhoo, keep up the good fight and if it continues' I will bring the article's attention to one of the admins. Thanks for the help! :) --Moreau36; 148, 19 December 2005 (UTV)

Puerto Rico
Sorry, just having a bad day. I hope not to have offended you. Mac Domhnaill 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Designation
While yes, Kearns, East Millcreek, and Magna are CDPs, there is no reason to label them as such when referring to it in that way. It is redundant, just like if you went through and everytime you mentioned Salt Lake City and re-stated it as "Salt Lake City city" because it's the "technical" designation. CDP is not officially part of their name, and people will look at you like you're an idiot if you say "I live in Kearns CDP." bob rulz 08:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, yes, I understand that, but you get my drift. You did it on the Salt Lake County page on the list of high schools, while it is redundant to refer to it that specifically in that list, and wholly unneseccary.
 * To expans on my point, now that I see what you've done with the Salt Lake County page, I believe that that is redundant. Just because it is listed by the U.S. Census Bureau as a CDP, does not mean that it is still not a city. It says below right there at the bottom of the page in the list of "communities" or whatever you want to call it that it is a CDP.

bob rulz 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Temple list
Why the huge concern about Halifax regional authority. Dartmouth is a location regardless of its current political status, and there is a huge difference between bedford, halifax, dartmouth, et. al. in geographic area (i.e. a 30 min). As to being consistent, there are many in the location that are not consistent with your proposed "rule". For example, the Orlando temple is listed as being located in Windermere, but it is not within Windermere city limits; however, Windermere is a much better description of its location than Orlando since it is barely outside the limits and many miles from Orlando's downtown area. I don't think there is any need to be so precise but rather we should be helpful by identifying the geographic location of the temple, as opposed to the temple name which is loosely based on location i.e. Halifax Nova Scotia temple, without regard to political designations. Trödel&#149; talk 09:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The former cities of Halifax and Dartmouth have merged to form a consolidated city-county like Indianapolis, Louisville, and other U.S. cities. Yes, Dartmouth is still a location, but it is now a location like Sugar House, Hollywood, the Bronx, or Ahwatukee, to give an example from Arizona that you might be familiar with. These "locations" are parts of Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, New York City, and Phoenix, respectively. If the Salt Lake Temple were located in the Sugar House neighborhood of Salt Lake City, would we list the temple's location as "Sugar House, Utah"? No, because that would be mixing "oranges" (subentities of cities or towns) with "apples" (cities and towns themselves).
 * Of course there are some temples that are not within any city or town limits. In those cases, the nearest city or town should be indicated, just as in your Orlando Temple example.
 * As for your final point, the very reason I put in the location column was to offer a more "precise", consistent description of the temple locations, which, as you point out, is lacking in the temple names, inconsistent and only loosely based on location as they are. The only way to attain such "precision" and consistency, if you will, is to pay attention to "political designations".
 * Denvoran 10:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sydney
What's the point of moving Sydney, Nova Scotia to Sydney, Nova Scotia (former city)? Is there a current Sydney in Nova Scotia that it could be confused with? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Denver and Aurora
What basis do you have for deleting John Kerry's name off the new Famous Denverites page? When Kerry was born in 1943, the city he was born in was Denver. Just because that same hospital is now actually in Aurora, his birth certificate states Denver. Unlike Michael D. Brown, John Kerry is actually from both cities, where Brown isn't from Denver or Aurora. I'm reinstating John Kerry to the page. Second, the compromise on the "Notable Aurorans-Famous people" section on the Aurora, Colorado page will work for now, but if possible I'd like to see a link to this "Denver Post article" on the Aurora talk page page as I had requested. Editor19841 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You were right. See my talk page. Editor19841 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Daybreak
Is this edit good? Daybreak Community 71.213.46.53 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Denver collaboration drive
I just wanted to comment to encourage your vote on U.S. collaboration of the week page for Denver. I have seen your really good contributions to the Denver page, and want to let you know that we can make the page even better if its selcted for this collaboration. To vote on the page just go here. And good job with your contributions to the Denver and related articles. Thanks, Vertigo700 00:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Care for a challenge?
Anaheim Hills, California. -Will Beback 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It's gonna be an effort. "This school is the least renowned school of all Anaheim Hills's elementary schools. It is considered old and in need of work. It is bordered by a nice park though." It's sweet. -Will Beback 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mesa, AZ
Do you think that Provo, Utah might have more LDS people than Mesa? 24.251.221.82


 * One-fourth of Mesa's population is about 113,000. Provo only has a population of about 100,000. Even if 100% of Provo's population is LDS (which it's not), there are still more Mormons in Mesa. Denvoran 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we know for sure that Mesa is one-fourth LDS? 24.251.221.82

Largest shopping center in Utah?
Regarging this, I got the 'largest shopping center' information from a Deseret Morning News sidebar about the current mall, which (after some digging) looks like a simplification of 'largest super-regional center in Utah' found on the Southe Towne expansion fact sheet. This sounds like an apples-and-oranges debate. Jordan Landing must not be a 'super-regional center' or South Towne just made up a classification for the sake of being first in something. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

USCOTW
I saw that you've worked on the Bill Ritter (politician) article, and would like to encourage you to support it in the USCOTW elections. Thank you, Editor19841 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Arlington County, Virginia
Hey Gellersen, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 02:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

List of temples page
''I misunderstood what Trödel was doing - and have left his edit as-is, except for removing a duplicative heading and fixing spelling. I read your comment on Trödel's page - you write that I "[keep] changing other people's edits back to '[my]' version", but aren't the other people doing just the same?''
 * When everyone else (albeit, a small number of editors) are wanting to keep things one way and you are the only one wanting to keep things another way than they are "your" changes. Even if Trodel did in the past say that he wanted things one way, he has obviously since changed his mind and that needs to be respected. I'm not sure how exactly to resolve this issue. Sue Anne 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with your edit. I am somewhat puzzled that you would immediately make a change to my edit on this page that we have had some disagreement over. Frankly it feels like wikistalking when you edit within 5 minutes actually it was 55 minutes - I assumed the 22:41 and 23:36 changes were in the opposite order - thus my mistaken 5 minutes - sorry bout that a change I make when you ahve only edited 5 times in the last 3 days. Please help me understand what is going on - I am having a hard time assuming good faith when it comes to my interactions with you. Since I pulled back from wikipedia because of the inappropriate (meaning I inappropriaty had them) hard feelings I have had regarding the edits on that page(I have only 18 edits in 2 weeks), I thought the news item on the Draper temple would be a good way to start editing LDS related articles again. I admit I hadn't quite thought through how to handle the Daybreak temple - I am unsatisfied with the "to be located in the" language - seems too wordy. I am not sure where things went wrong - for me, part of it is the use of two words for your username - so I thought there were two users disagreeing with me on Halifax to begin with - so I just abandoned my position. When I figured out later that there was only one user who signed using a different name - I was frustrated. Additionally, my perception (which admitedly may be wrong) is that 1) you don't want to wait and see if other users support your view - but want to enforce your view immediately, 2) you did not make any attempt to discuss the position that identifying the geographical location implies the use of a reasonably small geographical location, and 3) you see the issue in a very black and white manner such that there is no room for compromise.

Anyway - are we going to have a continuous advesarial relationship on the List of temples of CJC LDS, or can we come to some mutual understanding and respect for each others postitions on issues. In general I am willing to work something out, and see myself as reasonable in seeing other's positions, and even pride myself in finding creative compromise positions; however, I am finding that difficult to do when I see your edits - my first reaction is to to dig in my heels and fight to the death - but that is not how I want to feel or how I want to edit. I just reread this - and sorry for the accusations and ramblings - feel free to delete them if they overly offend - but I think the only way for us to come to some kind of resolution is to openly express to each other our views on the conflict and see if we can find some common ground - do you have any suggestions Trödel  04:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am responding in "good faith", even though I feel you didn't respond to my postings above or on the above-mentioned article's discussion page. Glad that you agree with my edit. Calculating how much time elapsed between your edit and my edit, and keeping track of my editing frequency - sounds like "wikistalking" to me. I will continue to make edits where I feel they should be made, each time giving a valid reason for them, as I have done consistently in the past. Just as I plan to avoid future edit wars and to be more sensitive to others' frustrations going forward, I hope not to be the the target of sarcastic and reactionary comments, nor to be "ganged up upon". Just because one doesn't have a network of "Wikipedia friends" to call upon for "help" doesn't necessarily make one's contributions of any less value. Those are my views, openly expressed. Denvoran 05:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (copied from Trödel's page)


 * You'd have to know me to realize that calculating the time between edits would just happen without thought. Especially since I went back to revise the description of the Daybreak temple. I'm not sure where to go from here. I hope that my recent comments haven't been "sarcastic and reactionary". As to the accusation that I ganged up on you - I think you will see that I solicited comments both from people who had supported your position as well as my position on the talk page. I was at a loss in finding a solution - and since I think that the google/wiki model of soliciting a larger sample of opinions is the best way to approach disputes I tried to do that - this approach has helped me both in solidifying my position and also in seeing that my position was not supported (my edits to Human from last spring come to mind. I didn't intend to gang up on you - just get help and viewpoints from others. Trödel  02:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So I guess we are at a détente, but still not resolved - do you feel there is anything I can do to further ease our conflict? Trödel  00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills
Would you vote on the Final Naming Poll on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page by Monday, June 6th at 11:00 pm pst. This is a collaborative effort to determine where the Anaheim Hills page will rest forever with no disputes. There are currently four choices to choose from, so go and check it out. --Ericsaindon2 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr violation
You were previously blocked before. Next time, instead of getting into a revert war, bring it to WP:RFPP or bring in mediation. I know that there have been quite a few disputes over the article, which means that you should do everything possible to not edit war. Please be mindful of this in the future. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ericsaindon2 & Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California
Please see Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. Blank Verse 08:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Flags
Thanks for adding the flags on Joint issue. It looks much better with them. Cheers ww2censor 18:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States Cities by Population
Geez, Gellersen, I really apologize for OFFENDING you! No hard feelings. --Moreau36 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Seal of Aurora, Colorado.gif license
Hello, Gellersen,

I'm concerned about the license you listed for the image Image:Seal of Aurora, Colorado.gif. I know this was a couple of years ago, but I just noticed it, and I thought I should bring it to your attention. I don't believe the seal is the work of the federal government; rather, the work of a local government, which is likely copyrighted! I believe the image still qualifies as fair use (a small logo), but if it's not a federal government work, that information should appear in the license.

Thanks! -- Ken g6 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 2px solid #777; background-color: #F1F1DE"

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
 * Image deletion warning
 * Image:Seal_of_Aurora,_Colorado.gif has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion  about this at its entry.
 * Image:Seal_of_Aurora,_Colorado.gif has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion  about this at its entry.
 * }
 * Note: I created a copy of this file as Image:Seal_of_Aurora,_Colorado.png here on en.wikipedia, as a fair-use case, so it's not completely gone.


 * Ken g6 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:800px-Map of Colorado-A.PNG
Image:800px-Map of Colorado-A.PNG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:COMap-locationof-Aurora.PNG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)