User talk:Sbmeirow

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sbmeirow.

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

1. My User Talk Archives
2. My Awards and Barnstars
3. My User Boxes
4. My eBook Collection

Can we have a new article ARM Cortex-M0 MCU core ? or We could merge ARM Cortex-M3 into a new article ARM Cortex-M - listing all Cortex M processor cores including Cortex M0. FossMCU (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, M0 and M4 needs to be addressed, but I haven't gotten around to do anything about them yet. I put the following in all the ARM talk section for discusion.

The popularity of the Cortex M0 and M4 are starting to take off, thus it would be easier to pick some direction before having a bunch of tiny articles. Should there be unique articles for each of the ARM Cortex families? Should there be only 3 major ARM Cortex articles instead, and redirect all sub-flavors to these 3 new articles? Requesting input at Talk:List of ARM microprocessor cores#Discusion for ARM Cortex article overhaul for comments! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need photos of ARM Cortex-M MCUs for this article. I have few NXP Cortex M3 and M0 MCUs, I can take photos. How about adding MBED image to this article? FossMCU (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of these articles need more photos: ARM Cortex-M, STM32, EFM32. The MBED photo doesn't show the part number on the IC, so I would say no. Any photos that we include, should CLEARLY show the vendor and part number on the IC chip. I need to find some time to take photos of all my ARM eval boards and chips on them. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take photos of NXP LPC1114, LPC1343, EFM32 ICs. I also have LPC1343 LPCXPresso , EFM32 TG Starter Kit, MBED development board. The existing MBED does not look like CC-BY-SA. FossMCU (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded [ARM Cortex-M] ICs, LPCXpresso photos. See my talk page. FossMCU (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded ARM Cortex-M4F starter kits photos. Use these for Cortex-M4 section. See photos. FossMCU (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cortex-M0+ dev board photo. Use it if relevant for the article. FossMCU (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another M0+ board FossMCU (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors is by ARM Ltd not by Canonical. Launchpad is a platform offered by Canonical for FOSS development. See https://answers.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+question/199912 #1 FossMCU (talk)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	This barnstar is being awarded because of particularly fine work done in improving the Raspberry Pi page. Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I'm awarding "The Special Barnstar" because since I joined Wikipedia, you have helped me a lot. From starting my user page to giving me suggestions, and a whole lot more... the list could go on! Wikipedia should be proud to have an editor like you! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised you didn't have that already. Rollback vandalism when looking at the last diff in the edit history.– Gilliam (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow,

Thanks for applying for one of the free Newspapers.com accounts at the Wikipedia Library. Your application had been pending since last August because we had more applicants than accounts, but we have just been given more accounts and you have been approved. However, one of the requirements for an account is that you have your preferences enabled to receive email messages on English Wikipedia. I need to email you a very short signup form to fill out. Would you mind changing your preferences so I can do that, please? Your email address (and no other information) will be passed on to Newspapers.com so they can activate your subscription. If you're no longer interested in Newspapers.com, please let me know. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com again[edit]

Hi Sbmeirow, I was just wondering if you'd like to reconsider withdrawing your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library. The rush to sign up has slowed a bit, and there are still some accounts available. You've been approved already, and are active in content creation, so I wanted to check back before actually marking your application as withdrawn. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me again. Withdraw my application for now. I have a big pile of wiki cleanup on my wish list to complete before I really need access. I'll get back to you later this year. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do! Thanks, HazelAB (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Just wanted to let you know that I thought your clarification on the US City project guidelines was thoughtful, and well done. It truly did make the instructions more clear. Onel5969 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations! Fstiennon (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded that meteorite pic to the Greensburg pages, and you had it added to another page within hours. And it seems like you're the go-to person for Kansas in general. You might be able to tell me if I have more pics you need for articles: https://unquietwiki.com/photos/ & https://unquietwiki.com/photos_old (I consider most of them under CC-SA, and license them such on Commons when I do post). Thanks, and keep up the good work! Unquietwiki (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I happened to be online when you were adding photos, so that's why it was so quick. I watch changes to all community articles in Kansas, so that's why I noticed your photos being added. Lots of small town articles don't have photos, so I feel they are in more dire need of improvement, and adding just one photo to any article that currently doesn't have a photo would be very helpful. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows 9. Since you had some involvement with the Windows 9 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 21:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My apologies for misunderstanding your "copied text from source" ed cm. I should have given an editor of your experience more benefit of the doubt and looked further, and/or asked you about it here. Jeh (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASolar_eclipse_of_August_21%2C_2017&type=revision&diff=794721136&oldid=794720700 65.95.136.96 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Go ahead and restore it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Would you please start an article about Joy, Kansas which is in Kiowa County, Kansas. You are more familiar with Kansas then I am. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I created it. From Google Satellite view, the community only has one business (tall concrete grain elevator) but there are currently no other building on the satellite view. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-the Brenham, Kansas article needs an info box and map; the community is also in Kiowa County, Kansas. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it in a few days. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve,

just in case you have missed it (I thought the note in the edit summary would have been enough), it is no longer desirable (if it ever was) to add "30em" to the {{reflist}} template. The template has recently been updated to automatically column-format the references depending on the type of output device, the width of the screen, the count of entries and, I think, also the size of the entries. While "30em" works fine for the majority of people, it does not for some, so it is wise to leave the decision to the template unless there is a very strong reason why this needs to be overridden (perhaps inside of tables?). Please check the template talk for more details.

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but it appears currently in discussion, also the auto-column feature isn't working on my 1920x1080 monitor on Windows 10 with Chrome browser. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is because the SoftICE article has too few references for the template to even start wrapping (for such a low number of refs, it doesn't really make sense to wrap, as it only makes the references less readable). IIRC the threshold is at 10.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some disagreement between us regarding what belongs into the "Further reading" versus "External links" sections. I think, there is certainly some overlap between them and one may come to different conclusions depending on perspective. To some degree this is probably also a matter of personal preferences. As I'm not particularly happy with your reversions in the SoftICE article, I am trying to understand why you felt strong enough about it to override me there. Unfortunately, I didn't found your "wrong section" very helpful after I already tried to explain my reasoning in a rather long edit summary...

In general, I think, "Further reading" is closer to "References" than "External links". That's why I often put sources into "Further reading", if they are static (books and similar works, dated articles, or references to similarly specific information etc.) and could become actual references in future version of the article, whereas I feel more dynamic sources like online repositories and collections, general sources like websites, and sometimes (if relevant and top-quality) online communities are more appropriate under "External links". Boiling this down to some catchy phrase like "specific/unspecific" or "static/dynamic" is perhaps oversimplifying things a bit, but I still find this to be mostly backed up by our guidelines and essays:

Regarding "Further reading" I found the following in MOS:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading:

"[...] publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject [...] Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section [...] When an article contains both sections, some editors prefer to list websites and online works in the External links section [...] The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject [...] Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend. [...] Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. [...]"

For "External links" I found in MOS:ELLAYOUT:

"A bulleted list of recommended relevant websites, each accompanied by a short description."

WP:ELMAYBE also talks about larger sites etc.

What do you think? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time got away on this one. I'll respond in the coming days. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid reason, college rankings are pseudoscience bunk, you restored without more than a generic statement. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-college-rankings-0828-story.html

We have many articles on this very topic; you could start by reading this one and noting how this topic is addressed here.

If you really want to contribute to this topic, you could help remove all of the "military friendly school" mentions and other "rankings" produced by Victory Media. It's become clear that those designations and rankings are indeed bullshit, pay-for-play "awards" that need to be expunged from most of our articles. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I find any, I'll remove those 2 types of things you suggested. Just because ranking is included in some wiki guidelines, doesn't mean rankings aren't pseudo-scientific, nor does it mean rankings aren't manipulated by money. I've been removing similar crap from CITY articles, and COLLEGE rankings come from the same type of pile. Some parts of rankings are valid because of hard numbers, but other parts are pure fluff. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're widely used and accepted so it's still important to include them even they're methodologically garbage. I admire your spirit but I caution you against spending too much time or energy fighting a battle that cannot be won and in many ways shouldn't be fought here. ElKevbo (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

page in question: Data degradation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.1.16 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why deleted? 2. Why do you call it spam? 3. If you think it should be better placed into a section - place it there, why delete? (As they are high I didn't know how to squeeze them into a section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.1.16 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put the images into the "Data degradation in storage" section, but it doesn't fit... Do you know how to make smaller thumbnails? 79.176.1.16 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly removed the photos because of layout issues, but also because you didn't add a longer statement to describe their purpose (caption isn't enough). I added the photos to the talk section of the article using the "gallery" feature, which is how they should be added to the article after you write some text for them. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As written in the Notability page you sent me

"Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists".

So why do you keep on deleting the satire news website from the satire news website list? This is Overzealous deletion. Why are you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lara77b (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:List of satirical news websites#Website notability guidelines. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hi. :)

I'd be grateful if the next time you edited Comodo Internet Security, you actually looked at what you edit. Let's see if you can see your own mistake this time.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey asshole - comments like this comment to me is why people hate wikipedia editors like you. Best regards to your scumbag comment. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY: Codename Lisa baited and insulted me by "whacking me with a fish", didn't provide any solution for my edit, then TRIED to get me banned from editing. Also, she blatantly insulted me in the article edit history. The outcome was "No Action Needed". Best regards. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: User:Codename Lisa account is currently in indefinite block status. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: User:FleetCommand account is currently in indefinite block status. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL explicitly says: "In the 'External links' section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." The guidance on university articles also says "The number of links here should be kept to an absolute minimum: do not to link other university pages..." So please reconsider and remove the unnecessary link that you've reverted back into the Wichita State University article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me, but your reason of "no thanks; please see WP:EL" in the edit history of Wichita State University was not a specific reason for a link to an extremely large article. Thanks for clarifying your view here!!

1) Wikipedia:College and university article advice is an essay, but not a mandated guideline, also the title says the word "advice". Just because something is stated in an essay, it doesn't mean it trumps Wikipedia guidelines. The banner at the top of Wikipedia:College and university article advice says "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.".

2) In Wikipedia:College and university article advice, it says "The number of links here should be kept to an absolute minimum". The word "absolute" in invalid, because it's an overly restrictive word that is not used in WP:EL guideline.

3) In Wikipedia:College and university article advice, it says "do not to link other university pages (e.g., admissions, School of Law, Department of Psychology), related groups (e.g., student media, unions, clubs), or pages already linked from earlier citations.". 3A) The "do not" in the "do not to link other university pages" phrase is overly restrictive, and I don't think WP:EL is this restrictive, but I need to do more research in WP:EL. 3B) A map on the university website fails the overly restrictive do not to link other university pages, but a map on a non-WSU website would pass the entire long statement. 3C) Also, the college sports link (see #4) would fail this rule too. OFF TOPIC NOTE: it looks like to link should be link to, which needs to be fixed.

4) In WP:EL, it says "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.". 4A) Notice how they use the phrase "try" (2 times) instead of "must" or "mandatory" or "mandate" or "absolute" or various similar forms of these words. "try" does not mean the same as those other words, thus it implies flexibility and lack of hard restrictions. 4B1) If we want to get extremely picky, then it could be argued that all university sports links MUST be removed too. I looked at a couple dozen large college articles, and noticed the 2nd entry in the "External links" section is a link to the college sports website. The existence of an official sport link clearly means that you aren't following this rule. 4B2) Though some college sports links have a different domain than the college domain, they are both owned by the same college, thus they are not 2 completely unrelated 3rd party websites, so please don't try to use this logic as a response.

5) In WP:EL, it doesn't state an exact maximum number of links in the "external links" section. I found this, but I haven't had enough time to research WP:EL history to find more.

6) I have another WSU link map by a 3rd party, but I prefer not to use it, because I'm worried about content rot, since WSU is currently in a major construction phase after razing their golf course. Their campus building map is currently evolving every year.

End of my 1st response. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to advocate for changes to WP:EL or WP:UNIGUIDE then please do so. And feel free to remove the links to college and university athletics pages; I agree with your interpretation.

I guess the primary question here is: What is a reader supposed to learn from a campus map? These are encyclopedia articles, not admissions brochures, tour guides, or adjuncts to the institutions' webpages. (That the campus maps also usually run afoul of the "don't have multiple links to the same webpage" part of WP:EL is rather minor, IMHO; this is the real issue.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait on the athletics links. I'll post something this weekend on WP:UNIGUIDE, tonight at the earliest. I'll respond to these questions tonight. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you used rollback to revert my removal of vandalism on the article, then in your very next edit here you remove that same content you restored citing it as vandalism - I assume that your revert was just done on accident? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments or edits weren't targeted at you. Something weird happened with the rollback (bug?), so I had to do a 2nd edit to fix things. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Good Humor

Thanks so much for contributing to the Talk discussion on the Gatlinburg page regarding the addition of registered historic sites. I got the storm started by posting a comment (as suggested by Wikipedia) explaining my decision to add back some registered historic sites that another editor removed right after I added them. I really wanted to add my own thoughts on the ridiculousness of nit-picking it in that kind of detail, but I'm relatively new to the game (and certainly not an expert), so I'm trying to avoid ticking anyone off right out of the gate. LOL! Let's just say you took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks! Riterchick1983 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-the Chevron, Kansas and the Hutchins, Kansas articles need info boxes-many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You-RFD (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-on the Kansas Department of Transportation map for Scott County, I notice Tractor, Kansas is on the map 2-4 miles east of Scott City just north of Highway 96. The GNIS id for Tractor, Kansas is: 471512 and is listed as a locale. I am not sure if Tractor, Kansas would be considered an unincorporated community. This should be looked into. It is possible the US Board on Geographic Names may have to change the classification. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems: 1) Chevron, Kansas - I think this was an old oil refinery only, not a town, but not sure, currently a ghost town? 2) Schaffer, Kansas - spelling might be wrong. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just continuing the conversation from Talk:South Park, Los Angeles. I never heard of the above term either, and I often will change it to Unincorporated area or something more understandable to the average person. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I've been moving towards putting "unincorporated community" in the intro and top of infobox, and saying something about CDP in the demographics section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow. I reverted your edit, though I ultimately decided to self revert for the time being. I disagree that it violates Wikipedia guidelines, mainly because it is no different than this section. They both show the same thing, but different things (people vs. buildings/Earth). The other issue I have is that you are just targeting Kansas articles (and I get that), but it makes no sense to include a gallery of photos for notable alumni in other articles and so many more. Maybe a RFC should take place at WP:WikiProject Universities for this matter where we can come up with a consensus and have a set consensus for the entire project instead of just targeting certain schools? Corky 00:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't comparing Apples and Apples (though you did say it), buildings aren't the same as people. I wouldn't have removed a gallery of Emporia State University buildings, because the buildings are mostly a permanent part of the college, where as a student is just passing through for a few years then gone. The students are basically nothing more than customers that pay for a service. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another type of articles with "notable people" section is cities. There are far more city articles than college articles, and a majority of city articles don't turn this section into a photo album, but I wouldn't doubt that some may do it since I haven't personally looked at tens of thousands of articles in the other 49 states. Some cities have secondary notable people LIST-type articles, similar to some colleges, and photos in those articles are fine, because the main topic is people. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have made numerous contributions to Wikipedia:USCITY, could you please clarify some guidelines I asked about on the Talk Page? Thanks, Phatblackmama (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) You could've easily started a discussion on the talk page too, before or after your edit today, instead you waited to throw this rock at me.

2) You used a curse word in an article edit comment, which is likely against another wikipedia rule.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Don't forget to use an Edit summary when you remove anything from an article. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've smelled dirty feet all over this since it started. Just sayin' ... John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I think that you should change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage. Since the name of: Ixquick is out of date. The updated name is: StartPage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notewiki2000 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Request hasn't been closed yet. 2) I didn't kick off the rename effort. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ll try to add complete references. Thought I already was. I’ll try to learn more about it. Midwestman1986 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you mean like titling it. Ok I just learned about that. It looks a lot different on mobile version which is what I’m using Midwestman1986 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next few days I’ll add titles to my references in Johnson county and Overland Park. I do try to put them in order — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right. GEDA is not a circuit simulation program. I was confused because GnuCap is considered part of the "gEDA Suite".--RolfSander (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sbmeirow, I see your aware of the shenanigans going on, thanks for your reverts on multiple articles. I view you and I as opposing referees in the Wikipedia Kansas-Missouri Border War, I may not always agree, but you explain your reasoning and that's much appreciated. There obviously some fanatics and POV pushers on both sides, but this latest incarnation in User:Midwestman1986 is the most pervasive case by far. Tangentially, I'm sure I've made this case before to you, but I think it's vitally important that Kansas City, Missouri as the central city be mentioned in the lead of all cities that the U.S. census places within the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. Across Wikipedia, as you know, it's standard to mention the central city in any suburban article this shouldn't be any different for KC articles just because there are some confusing naming issues. We should treat it the same way as we treat St. Louis or Wichita metro area articles. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I was offline about 2 weeks, and another times about 1 week.

As I've said before in edit comments, I changed the use of "Kansas City, Missouri" to "Kansas City metroplitan area" in city articles on the Kansas side of the border, because of ongoing edit wars across multiple city articles that centered around people that seemed to not like KCMO instead of KCKS or some other city in KS in the introduction. After I changed to the metro area, the edit war problem magically went away. This is not the same for Wichita, because Wichita doesn't sit on a state border, nor are there two different cities with Wichita in the city name, also there isn't any edit wars for suburb cities around Wichita either. Also, what you are saying isn't a hard rule in stone, because Arlington, Texas / Plano, Texas / Irving, Texas / Garland, Texas use the metro scheme. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to avoid edit wars, but we shouldn’t alter crucial basic information, just cause there’s a contingent of people who would prefer otherwise out there. You’re correct that while it’s not a hard rule it’s usually how things are done and in this case I think it’s even more important to include it, since the naming can be confusing it provides clarity. Anyways, I won’t make any changes now as you can see, I’m having fun swatting flies across multiple KC area articles, but long term it’s really something we need to consider. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not that people prefer KCKS or don’t like KCMO. It’s the fact that Missouri has 6 million people, so it has over twice as many Wikipedians than from Kansas. Clearly the popular opinion isn’t going to be on par with reality or accurate at all. This is where Wikipedia fails. The fact is that 40% of the KC metro is in Kansas. It is the largest metro area in Kansas. Yet most of the related pages are written by wiki project Missouri. 40% of the words on the Kansas City metropolitan area page should be about Kansas but it’s currently around 5%, if that. It needs to be fixed. No wonder there’s always people edit warring from Kansas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.67.81.169 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you should make it Kansas City metropolitan area instead of Kansas City Missouri. Saying KCMO is the anchor City is kind of nonsense. It has lower employment densities and lower population densities than cities in the Kansas side. It just has very large city limits which makes it the size of a County, making it appear more important. It actually has more than double the land area of Wyandotte County Kansas. It also has almost the same population density as all of Johnson county, meanwhile having less people. It’s also in another state so Taxes have nothing to do, Government has nothing to do, politics etc. Employment also has nothing to do. At this point more people probably commute from Missouri to Kansas Than the other way around. Saying KCMO is the anchor City is nonsense. Just put it’s the most populated city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.67.81.169 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Aurora, Colorado Go to Orange County, California Go to Plano, Texas Go to Collin County, Texas Go to League City, Texas Houston. Go to Hamilton County, Indiana

And those are all In the same states. stop being dishonest Grey Wanderer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.67.81.169 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Kansas Barnstar
		The Kansas Barnstar is awarded to editors to recognize significant contributions to Kansas-related aticles. I know of no Wikipedian more deserving of the Kansas Barnstar. Awarded for vast amount of edits across spanning the entire state, but especially for your long-time work on cities and communities. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved, Sbmeirow! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! We got some external links. Let's hope they don't get deleted. I would like to improve this article further. I would like to discuss things like Dirty Kanza being sold to Lifetime and the evolution of the event. World Tour teams are now coming in 2019. How do you recommend I go about adding this content without it getting removed? User:Dfriestedt

As with anything on wikipedia, the most important thing to make text "stick" is add references to web pages. This isn't a blog, so no opinions, no feelings, no self promotions, no advertisement fluff. Create a new section called "History". Add text and references under it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Providence Medical Center Amphitheater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, very little sourcing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ericwg (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazingly amazed, because this article should NEVER have been nominated for deletion, instead improvement banners should have been added first. A simple google search clearly proves this is more notable than you claim. Just this one search shows 14,600 matches, and this doesn't include other venue names. 02:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The Tuttle Creek Lake section title "1993 spillway chute erosion and repair" precisely covers the present content of that section -- discussion of the effects of the flood is notable, but does not cover the broader topics of the Spillway. A "Spillway area" section could added to cover the design, construction, operation, and usage info, including the fact that the Spillway was an afterthought. IveGoneAway (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like the section name, which is why I changed it. The newer name you picked is fine by me. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was there a method to this madness? It broke the refs, and I'm thinking you only did one half of an edit? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you proposed some upgrades to the infobox for U.S. counties here, and I am in favor of these changes. It seems there is little to no discussion about the proposed changes, however maybe we could work together to produce a sandboxed mock-up of the proposed revisions to demonstrate how it would work.

I have been working on revising the population estimates and while I have not had many issues I did run into one user that has opposed my changes, stating the official 2010 Census population should be in the infobox and the estimates should be in the table later in the article. This is blasphemous as nobody else has opposed the changes elsewhere, and I know lots of articles have been updated. The proposed change would go a long way to fixing this problem. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 23:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Over 500K uses of the "Template:Infobox settlement" exist, and many thousands of city/community articles have both decade and estimates, though I've never seen anyone complain about it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow, I have added code to the sandbox of this template, and would like you to take a look at the fifth test case (York County, Virginia) here before I formally propose the code be added to the template. I think it looks a lot more like the settlement infobox template, without breaking what is already there. I feel like after the 2020 census the new code should be used so the old parameters can be deprecated.

Also, look here for someone that tried to raise an objection to having population estimates in the infobox. FYI The undone edit was later reverted by the same user after I commented to them that the edit they undid should not have been undone. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for starting this effort. Second, the examples are missing the word "Total" per my county example which is the word used on city articles. If I misunderstanding your example, please clarify my ignorance. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, this is my first foray into creating or editing templates so if I left something out, I apologize. I did go back and edit the sandbox again to make the output look more like your examples. I also added citations for each the decennial and estimated figures, to illustrate how they look. The density figure is still using the old parameters, which I did intentionally to show that my changes will not interfere with or break the template as it stands today. It is important to show this so that there are no issues getting it approved to go in the live template. I did do a test with the new parameter for density but did not save the change, I just previewed and it looked ok. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 21:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initially the bottom right example look great. I need to come back later and look at this close. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow, Thanks, I think anything that it needs now would be easy to do. The hardest part is getting the logic worked out such that the new parameters can work with the older ones and not break anything.--Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I went through the trouble of writing new code for the U.S. county infobox, however I am going to try something different. I found that the template can be rewritten to be based upon Template:Infobox settlement while keeping the unique features of the county infobox. Please see my post here. I will try and work on this in my personal sandbox before committing the changes to the U.S. county infobox sandbox as required to get the change approved for the live template. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 23:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow I went ahead and worked on a rewritten Template:Infobox U.S. County that uses the Template:Infobox settlement for display. This works very well and keeps the infobox from having to be rewritten in the future with future enhancements while allowing it to maintain its unique flavor. Let me know what you think, as I am would like to have this pushed to the actual template really soon. You can see it in the Template:Infobox U.S. county/sandbox and Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1], you have my blanket permission to edit anything I write. You are one of the editors I trust, and besides, I can always revert if I don't like a change. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same goes for my trust back in your direction too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the Intel_HEX article. How did you happen to notice the change I made? I do not have a problem with changing the location of the original specifications as the only reason I put a copy on my (Real-World-Systems.com) site was that I could not locate another. Whats makes the archive site OK and my site not ok?

PS I wanted to add a comment regarding the history and reason for the leading colon and checksum on every record which was because of the original paper tape implementation. Can you add anything to this?

DGerman (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denison, Kansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denison (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) 09:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for adding info to the D5300 page, but I have a question on one of your edits. On 2015 January 6‎ at 01:14 (yes, a long time ago, but the edit has survived), you added I/O info, including USB. The problem is that you put an asterisk next to USB with no footnote or explanation. I'm not certain what you intended, but it isn't clear.

If you could clarify (or remove the asterisk), it would avoid confusion for folks reading that page.

Thank you, WesT (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You expect me to remember after 1707 days? LOL! In 2019, my only guess is maybe I didn't know the exact type of USB connector was on the camera at the time of the edit??? Please investigate and update it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it that way, it certainly makes sense. Thanks for considering my comment. I've removed the asterisk...if anyone knows why it was there, and should be there, they can put it back.  :-) WesT (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it’s the Kansas City metro area guy. Wasn’t meaning to annoy you with the “part of the Kansas City area edits” I’ll go try to make them fit better, I added it to every city in the metro area. My IP address kept changing every 2 hours so I decided to make an account because I couldn’t log into old ones (password and email forgot), not trying to annoy or confuse you, just trying to make these pages more accurate and well balanced by using well cited info (only using 1 account). I know the area very well on both sides. I also have studied the demographics of the area and want to make it more accurate. Keep in mind it looks a little different for me because I judge my edits based on how they look on mobile view so I usually try to add important and significant stuff to the lead. Lmk if you disagree with anything I do , not trying to start anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanamanianBlanco (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to be annoying , I know people hate Johnson County. I’m from Missouri and Johnson County has amazing statistics it’s literally unreal.

I’ll go get a better reference for it having the highest income.

It’s not like promotion or anything it doesn’t get many page views, it’s just the stats are incredible and there’s not many counties that can compare.

The fact it’s Like half of The Kansas City and has an average income almost double of Jackson County is kind of important. It explains a lot economically and it has a much higher GDP because of the high income.

For example you go to KCI page and see most people using the airport are coming from Johnson County, but it really doesn’t make sense unless you put that it has the highest average income.

What I’ll do is find a more reliable reference and then I’ll change the word wealthiest to highest average income so it doesn’t sound Snobby and Obnoxious.

I’ll put the lowest crime rate under a new crime section instead of the lead. The highest average income is important tho because it explains a lot about economy and everything being used in the area is coming from Johnson County.

I created a new crime section.

I reworded it so It didn’t sound like comparing poverty in the rest of the Area. I just put that it has low unemployment rate and high income which shows a good long term economy instead of saying it’s the wealthiest. Lmk if you disagree. I added a better reference.

I moved Crime to its own Section. I think you can leave wealthiest up there , it’s well referenced. Unless you just want me to list all the counties next to each other showing that it’s the wealthiest.

Yeah the Crime thing Was probably not appropriate. I think we can compromise and leave wealthiest up there. I just kind of put it up there as I was going.

Is that a good compromise , No Crime and No unemployment in the lead. Not trying to compare crime or make people look poor. Was Just putting it down as I went

If u study the demographics all the numbers have shifted to the Kansas Side. And all of it goes back to Johnson County. Idk why you changed it all of a sudden.

Like anywhere you go , KCI airport, chiefs games , royals games, sporting Kc games. Doesn’t matter the license plates are mostly from Johnson County.

Other people were spreading this stuff and I investigated, the only way to explain it is by showing Johnson County has a very high average income and a low unemployment rate . Crime has Really nothing to do with it though. I’m not comparing who’s poor and who’s not poor.

If you take away the fact it’s wealthy and has a low unemployment rate then it doesn’t make any sense. Why would most people using KCI or going to chiefs games be from Johnson County? Because it’s wealthy and has a low unemployment rate along with employing 320,000 people. Crime has nothing to with it tho so I made a new section. I’m gonna go add lowest unemployment rate. It’s the only way it makes sense to other people.

Like go to the Kansas City International Airport page for example or the Kansas City Union Station page. I put that most passengers were from Johnson county and most the money for bistate tax was from Johnson county same thing with the chiefs. The only way for that to make any sense at all demographically is by knowing Johnson county has high Income and low unemployment. If you just look at total population it makes no sense at all because it has less people than Jackson county. That’s why wealth and unemployment should be in lead or it doesn’t make any sense just based of population numbers. It comes together like a puzzle piece and if you take away the fact it’s wealthy and has a low unemployment rate then it falls apart.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PanamanianBlanco (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) As I stated previously, you should not use wealth or lack of it type words in the intro, but you went ahead and did it again. This has already been discussed in the past, per the following. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_19#Request_for_comment

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sherman_Oaks,_Los_Angeles#Affluence

2) Articles are suppose to be written in a neutral point of view, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3) Please stop using bare URL references, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4) Please don't use references that don't state where they got their information, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Government and other highly reliables sources should be used for statistics. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5) Please sign your comments, so people know who wrote what in the talk sections, per Wikipedia:Signatures. Please indent when you respond... look at how other people do it in talk sections, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Im going try signing(PanamanianBlanco (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC))[reply] 

There we go PanamanianBlanco (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah I read that neutral point of view thing , you’re saying neutral point view and meanwhile you’re removing well referenced stuff , you’re making absolutely no sense on this one. You literally just got upset exactly when I wrote that on the chiefs , this is completely backwards and then you asked me to do you a favor? Like what? I’m just putting down all the numbers of the counties PanamanianBlanco (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Numbers don’t have a Point of View PanamanianBlanco (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I had started information on defunct school districts in other states. If you're interested, you can get ones of old Kansas school districts (that closed anytime after 1996) by getting Wayback Machine archives of the Kansas Department of Education. The old pages of that agency should link to URLs of any of the old districts. The agency may also maintain a list of dissolved and/or renamed school districts (Texas, Iowa, Mississippi, and Arkansas do so, and California has had multiple partial lists too) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unified_school_districts_in_Kansas#District_consolidated_or_dissolved • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I used this list to start articles on the merged districts and/or those that absorbed former districts. If I have additional such lists I can make more. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm confused as to why you reverted my addition of the new Topeka flag on the Topeka page, since you didn't leave an explanation. It is, in fact, the new flag of Topeka, Kansas. Thanks for clarifying. IbIANTiA (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

because you reformated the infobox and turned it into a big mess. Why do you think this MESS is ok??? If you want to change one field, then please change just the one field. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, and thanks for clarifying. I used Visual Edit and it must have messed with the formatting. The only change I made was to the flag field, and it looked fine in the preview. I've redone it in Edit Source mode. Going forward, could you please leave an explanation when you revert an edit? Thanks. IbIANTiA (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit of mine about the price of Vuescan. That's fine, this question has nothing to do with the article, or Wikipedia. The summary was "that's not what the current download page says in 2020 https://www.hamrick.com/purchase-vuescan.html"

Now I find that very curious. I have found that sometimes sites give different prices in different circumstances (after looking up something, going away, and returning, the price has increased; I delete cookies and go to it through a VPN and it's back where it was. And different prices according to the region for the searcher's IP address). I have just looked at https://www.hamrick.com/purchase-vuescan.html; the price is shown to me (from UK IP address) as it was before: US$19.95 for the standard edition, US$49.95 for professional (approximate sterling equivalent also shown). What do you see? (I paid $40 for the standard edition many years ago.)

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From USA, at this moment it says $39.95 and $89.95, then above each one is the price $10.00 more with a slash through the higher price. I clearled my caches with CCleaner and did a "Ctrl-F5" in Chrome to force a reload of the webpage to ensure I wasn't looking at old content. Yep, sounds like different price for different region or country. If the price isn't consistant, then we maybe should leave it off the webpage, thoughts??? BTW, I purchased the PRO version 10+ years ago. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. Interesting. Something to bear in mind when pricing anything over the Internet. The prices I quote say they include a limited-time $10 discount (from 29.95, 59.95). Price is, indeed, best left out of the article. (Information about this discrepancy would actually be helpful for readers, but I don't think it belongs in the article, and will change with time. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said you've gotten GNIS to update some coordinates: how did you go about this? The query page says it's no longer regularly updated and to go through the National Map Corps. When I had looked into that before though, it seemed to be limited to suggesting changes to structures and landmarks, not correcting and removing "populated place" names. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 21:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I send an email that I found on their website. I got a reply back saying that I should send another email to "USGS Geographic Names team" at gnis_manager@usgs.gov. In the past couple of weeks, I sent an email to request them to correct the coordinates of 3 unincorporated communities. I sent URL links for 3 GNIS entries, link to a current county map, link to a 100+ year old historical map as evidence for my request, and explained why I though their coordinates were wrong. I got an email response and they were fixed within 24 hours. A few other times in past years I requested coordinate corrections too. They aren't going to REMOVE historical names just for the heck of it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll try that at some point then, thanks. You must have missed the scores of Arizona AFDs after a malformed mass-creation from GNIS...the website has lots of discrepancies with the USGS National Gazetteer, which properly lists these ranches and river crossings and railroad junctions and whatnot as locales rather than populated places. Soooooo many that no, don't need to be outright removed, but have the classification corrected to another type or with (historical). This isn't just for the heck of it, they're wrong and shouldn't be marked on modern topos or imported by Google Maps and other sites that rely on their data. Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Antelope, Kansas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aka

Burdick, Kansas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aka

Lincolnville, Kansas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aka

Lost Springs, Kansas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aka

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I know you do a lot of editing to US city articles so I would value your opinion regarding next steps at User talk:Tpwissaa#April 2020 - New England as Region in Template:Infobox_settlement and Talk:Waterbury, Connecticut#Waterbury as Part of New England? Should it go to an RfC, or is this just a misinterpretation of what the "region" parameter is to be used for at Template:Infobox settlement? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know that this isn't the most ordinary request, and I know I haven't done that much on the standard English Wikipedia, but I have a request for you that, based on your contributions here, I think you would be a good fit for. On the Simple English Wikipedia, there is no state that could be considered "complete". For most states, they're far more complete if they simply have articles for more than a couple dozen cities, and those articles usually have fewer than five sentences in them. The articles for the states themselves are short, there's little to no information about their state governments, departments, landmarks, history, etc. The one exception is Kansas. I have been on a quest to make the Kansas article good enough to promote and to fill out the list of cities in Kansas on the Simple English Wikipedia. Your contributions here have helped me immensely by serving as a template for what to do there. Considering that you are also a Kansan and have contributed to so many city articles here, I figured you would be a good fit. I have created many myself, and they too can serve as a template, but it's proving difficult to do it alone. I understand that the standard English Wikipedia is your home, but I ask as a fellow Kansan who also wants to make the state proud. There needs to be at least one state that can serve as a template on what a truly complete topic on the wiki can look like, and it would help that wiki in so many ways. I hope you will consider it, if nothing else than for a change of pace. Thank you. ~Junedude433(talk) 16:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've to decline at this moment because I don't have enough hours in the day. I haven't even completed the tasks that I need to get done for English Wikipedia. My recommendation to you is that you try to strip down an article layout to the absolute bare minimums, otherwise you will never be able to complete the task. Good luck. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. My general method for creating pages is copy-editing, where I just copy/paste the standard English version and make enough revisions so that it is simpler. This method has allowed me to create so many city articles since nearly all of the layout is the same (except for the history sections, usually). The real problem is just the sheer amount of articles that would need to be created. ~Junedude433(talk) 14:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have both been removing flags from infoboxes in Kansas. Over the years there have been dozens of discussions about this, but still WP:INFOBOXFLAG permits them "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." Has there been a recent consensus to remove them? I hope so. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was some consensus, maybe I'm thinking of EDIT comments by various users, or old discussions. Time ticks along, too much to remember over many years of editing. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite question needs to be answered too... "Is there any census to ADD flags to every USA community article, now?" • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question here ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Was_there_any_consensus_on_flag_icons_in_city_infoboxes?

Hey there. One of the numbers in the geo-coordinates of New York City set the pointer to Fort Wayne, Indiana with this edit. I'd have fixed it myself, but you sourced GNIS and there are 19 coordinates listed. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have followed this discussion about the error in the statute. At this point, I don't know of a reason to mention the error in the wiki, but there is a question in my mind whether to use an image of the shale or of a stone post to represent the state rock. Maybe there is a Kansas project page where this can be discussed? IveGoneAway (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was confusing. You are an established Kansas article writer, and you responded to an edit on this subject. I can summarize. Last year, the Legislature declared "Greenhorn Limestone" to be the state rock. From the Senate minutes, it is clear that the Stone Posts that come from a thin layer of the Greenhorn was intended. So, the question is whether should there be a picture of a stone post to represent the Greenhorn instead of a picture of the I-70 road cut. So, I am looking at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kansas as a place to ask. I could update the State Symbols on Portal:Kansas. IveGoneAway (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what picture of the I-70 road cut? Since there is a limited amount of photos on Wikimedia Commons, many people will use what ever is available until someone either finds a photo or takes a photo and uploads it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing the picture used to image the Kansas State Rock on List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones. It is not so much a limited number of images of the Greenhorn, it is the limited number of locations where the public can view so much of its depth. This is Mile 229 on I-70. I am limited to taking pictures from a moving vehicle. But the image quality is not the issue. It is the Stone Posts that are the actual state rock. I have aranged to modify the caption to "Greenhorn Limestone, from which the Kansas Stone Posts were cut." The question is how to add the state rock to the other Kansas pages with symbol lists. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "other Kansas pages"? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas, under the list of Inanimate insignia. Portal:Kansas under State symbols. (Note: Channel catfish can be added to Living insignia under the same HB.)

The problem as I see it is the impression of the typical reader: Link "Greenhorn Limestone" and the reader thinks "What the heck?", Link limestone and the reader may think, "Yeah, I get it, look at all of the big limestone buildings." Link limestone or stone post and they can think, "Yep, "Now that's rural."". IveGoneAway (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much for editing the Kansas Ghost Town list, I’m so happy that you did that! Thanks, Dannon. DannonCool (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you took off the commissioner and city manager in government. It’s an accurate statement and you deleted. 66.115.122.13 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the city manager.• Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To do: It wasn't so much that miners were searching for gold; definitely it was not the trope of prospectors panning for gold trying to find the mother load (not that as kids we didn't look!). The "pay dirt" was the whole hillside (sacred to the Pawnee), the promotions were just about buying into proposed technologies for cost effectively recovering gold diffused throughout the Blue Hill Shale; that is, the real activity was setting up maybe 5 different experimental mills in relative succession, none of which succeeded. IveGoneAway (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I made any mistakes to the article, please fix it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, you might not have even been the originator of the phrase about the miners (the way the wiki shows those changes, it is rather difficult to see what was changed with out some time digging.) There is a lot to fix, but the community itself is rather trivial, even if the hoax was somewhat culturally significant. I was unsure that the hoax term would fly, so I was surprised that you bolded it. Honestly, it is not clear how much was hoax and how much was self-delusion all around. I would like to find out more about the eye witness to Pawnee teepees on the bluff across the river, all of the Pawnee sites I know of are in the same geological context. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Search for books on this site.[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating Somerset, Kansas . When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Somerset ), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of neutrality, I don’t understand why you censor plain fact. It is typical to link the central city in suburban articles across Wikipedia. I cannot help that this hurts of the feeling of a few Kansas editors, but it doesn’t change reality. I will escalate this to the highest levels necessary if need be. Or we can open a request for comment. Again, there is no neutrality issue here and I resent it being framed as such. It is what it is. I have more than enough current online sources and a veritable stack of history books, including one on Overland Park and one on KCK that state this. This is so plain it’s not the kind of thing that usually requires citing, but if that’s what it takes to please you I will exhaustively cite this. If you really view it as an issue of neutrality than you know better than to revert edits without opening dialogue. I am tired of this old fight. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I told you in the past that I removed KCMO because it was causing edit wars in the past. Changing everything to KC metro area link was a simple neutral solution that fixed the problem. If you remembered the issue, then you should have started a dialogue today before trying to push that text back in again. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen an edit war over that issue in a long time, barring that crazy Johnson County sockpuppet guy, and I don’t recall anything in the last decade bad enough to justify obscuring the information. It’s not a trivial issue for Kansas City, even our former President Trump got this wrong publicly and to great ridicule. It’s also a common mistake for foreigners and folks from the coast so I really think it’s sorely needed. If I put it back in with individual citations (I’ll do one modern online source and one historic text source for each would you be satisfied? If it really does cause some kind of big edit war (besides you and me) then we can re-evaluate, but I’d be very surprised. Regardless, we shouldn’t censor it because it irks some folks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) It hasn't happened in a very time only because the "Kansas City, Missouri" text hasn't been in the intro of any Kansas articles in a very long time, which is strong proof that my change did stop the vandalism and edit wars.

2) Old vandalism/wars wasn't happening in only one city article, instead over time it would move around between various city articles on the Kansas side.

3) Old vandalism/wars typically was "Kansas City, Missouri" was changed to ("Kansas City, Kansas" or one of the other largest cities on the Kansas side).

4) I'm confindent that references won't stop vandalism and edit wars. It could have numerous references and it wouldn't be enough to stop childish IP editors.

5) If you want to put it back, then go for it, but with the understanding that if vandalism or edit-wars start happening in the future then I may need to remove the KCMO link again.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do my best to vandal clad it. I would expect some changes but surely these can be dealt with a standard revert. I’ll monitor closely so as to keep it off your plate best I can. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you add a ref, don't add more than one, because as I said before that childish IP editors will vandalize anything whether no refs or a bunch of refs. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at Talk:Covington, Virginia#Presidential election results. These charts have been added to so many city and county articles, and aside from disrupting the layout, I'm not sure how much value historic presidential voting patterns add to an article. Nearly all the charts have been added by one editor, and there have been ongoing concerns about sourcing. I realized after starting my discussion that this was not the best article to start my challenge, since Covington is more of a county than a city, so WP:USCITIES may not be completely applicable. I'm wondering if an RFC should be next? Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have suspected that HappyElectionsNerd83 might be closely associated with reference uselectionatlas.org website and might be doing this effort to specifically direct traffic to the website? Maybe you should ask someone to investigate whether the IP address of this persons account is coming from Ithaca, NY region (per the website contact info)? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many edits are from this editor, who has been brought to ANI a number of times over sloppy sources (there's a new discussion there now actually). The editor has been very guarded about where they get their sources, but refers often to Dave's Atlas, which is a pay site for county-level data. Their IP is from Ohio. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe U.S. election results should be treated in the same way as U.S. population is treated, all references must link to an official government source? census.gov is suppose to be the official site we are suppose to reference for all U.S. populations, but I'm not sure of the official source(s) for U.S. based election results? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This: Talk-page-archive-bots like seeing signatures at the end. I expect that sooner or later, that talk page will need to be bot-archived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I wasn't aware of that issue, also you could have moved my "sign" to fix the problem. 02:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Can I get your opinion about this revert? I find these presidential election results out-of-scope on small city articles, a bit like listing all the chiefs of police back to the 1800s. I'm considering an RfC to get input and a consensus about these charts on city (not county) articles. Can I get your input? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like them in city articles either. An RfC might be a good idea, but it's hard to say what other people think? Maybe ask for input at WP:USCITY. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your input at Talk:New Fairfield, Connecticut#Election table would be welcome. This one may end up in an RfC. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have worked on the NBAF article. Would you like to help me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Bio_and_Agro-Defense_Facility#Controversy_Section Charles Juvon (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kansas books has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment to look at Opelika, Alabama#Economy and some of the recent edits I would appreciate it. The entire section looks like press release, but another set of eyes would be great. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sure smells like it, but I could be wrong too?

Did you look at https://www.opelika-al.gov/294/Economic-Development to see if any text was copied directly from it?

"LLC" is listed twice in the section, which is often a sign something might be copied from a press release (or some website). I have a feeling most people don't use "LLC" when they write something off the top of their head.

Whether or not it came from a press release, there is some fluff that that should be removed or changed to be more neutral sounding, such as: ""100 Smartest Cities" junk, " leading automotive parts manufacturers in the world", "Top Groups 2005 list in the Honorable Mention category", "sixth-best performing small city", ...

The References section smells fishy too.

Was I suppose to give an opinion, or carve it up?

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've already been reverted once, but I'll have a look tomorrow and see if I can find where the text was copied from, then take a hatchet to it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I carved off a few things, but it needs more work. Go ahead and make your changes. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for your input in regard to the Houtzdale, PA article. However I found one of your edits to be somewhat unnecessary and I would like some explanation in regard to how the information did not meet some sort of guideline. The information deleted by you was the summary of the Covid-19 response in a small borough in rural America. I feel like not only the press, but also a lot of other sources missed the aspect of how small towns were affected by this. If Wikipedia is a place for knowledge about a topic to be archived, then why would we discard a knowledge that may be useful? In fact there are several articles written specifically talking about the Covid-19 responses of cities and towns across the world. Your comment said, "Wikipedia isn't a place to post COVID19 status history" when in fact Wikipedia houses articles outlining just that. For example, COVID-19 pandemic in New York City The unfortunate thing is that now everyone who was involved in that articles content has wasted their time, as the edits can not be undone easily. I understand that you seem like someone who is committed to helping keep Wikipedia a valuable source of knowledge, but in this instance, you greatly missed that mark with your edits. Zackmanb67 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)zackmanb67[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in New York City is a separate article than New York City, also it is much larger / well-known / notable than Houtzdale too. Community articles aren't a place to post community health status and non-notable awards. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also see Wikipedia:USCITY (which applies to all types of communities). I'm sure there are some other links that I need to post too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you participate in this discussion. You may want to comment at Talk:Southern Methodist University#Image gallery of former students. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was referring to Wichita, Kansas. There is literally no other city named simply Wichita in the country. In this interview Jack White, lead singer of the White Stripes says “I put myself into the character when I sang it in a traditional blues sense, especially in the idea of travelling to "Wichita," a place I’ve still never been, and out of respect for using the city as a metaphor, and due to the song’s longevity now, I will never go to. Limitations like those help my creativity.”--Rockchalk717 21:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I once read it referenced a "Wichita Recording Studio", not in Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question in this edit, which was explained in the edit removing it. So I removed it because A) it's a link to an article that's already linked at least 3 times already in the page and B) because it's not about the city of Burns it's about the county. It's not appropriate to link to a further reading about the city of Burns to a reading list on another page that is not about the city. The reading list is about the county and the county has its own article and is linked multiple times. Anyone who wants to know more about the county would navigate to the county article, it's not expected to have that info on the page of Burns city. Canterbury Tail talk 17:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City information is contained inside county books and state books. At one point in time, hunderds of city articles (in Kansas) had county books and state books listed in them, because those higher-level books have content about those cities. It was a big pain-in-the-ass to maintain those books across hundreds of city articles, so years ago I decided to overhaul the mess by moving all county & state books from the city articles to the county and state articles, then I linked all the county article book sections to state books as well as updated some of the state book list. Over long periods of time, I have been plowing through all Kansas community articles and linking their book sections to the county book sections. By this point in time, there are likely close to a thousand Kansas community articles that have been converted, likely above 80% of Kansas community articles (maybe higher). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me here but, other than you've done a lot of editing on it, I'm not seeing a good reason to link articles on the cities to the county articles that have already been linked multiple times in the city articles and point them to a book list that may, or may not, contain any information on said city. I fail to see how this is helping the reader understand the topic. Maybe I'm missing something here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) A link to a county article doesn't automatically mean a book list exists in that article, where as a link that has the word "books" does mean it. You are incorrectly equating the two links to be the same. 2) Per "point them to a book list that may, or may not, contain any information on said city", that statement is meaningless as a reason, because you haven't proven there isn't city information in the books at the county article. Even if a county article has nothing more than old atlas books, they are enough to invalidate your statement, because all Kansas county atlas books have some information about communities in the county. 3) After editing Kansas City community articles, you purposely chose to edit communities near where I grew up. It's obvious to me what you did. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what you mean by this last statement? I have no idea where you're from or where you grew up, that's not relevant to any editing. I just stumbled into the Kansas communities by county via random links. If you wish to check my edit history this is a common pattern of mine, find a random article and then spread through their related articles doing some cleanup. I'm not going to revert or anything, I just wanted to explain why I removed the links as you had left edit summaries asking why they'd been removed. We appear to have gotten off on the wrong foot here, I mean no disrespect and I'm not here to destroy your work. I'm purely doing some copyediting and (external) link maintenance. Lets start over. Canterbury Tail talk 11:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the link text...

• TEXT BEFORE - See also: List of books about Marion County, Kansas
• TEXT AFTER - See also: List of books about Marion County, Kansas, including historical information about its communities

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]