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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

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]

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]

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]

We don't need "United States" when we already have the the name of one of the country's states. I am not sure why you have made such a change. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Per WP:OBVIOUS, "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader". 2) Per WP:AUDIENCE, "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia" & "It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully". 3) The english Wikipedia is shared by readers of many non-American countries. Just because Kansas and other state names are obvious to Americans, it doesn't automatically mean it's obvious to readers from other countries. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you improperly changed the WaKeeney, Kansas article. You should have only removed the "United States" text instead of reverting all of my changes. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In regard to your recent edit to WaKeeney, Kansas, the purpose of an WP:Edit summary is to summarize an edit, not to send a personal message to another editor. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in your fixed version, the URL is published at 2018 and currently unavaible （maybe invalid). But the GaoHua company which runs BPC radio broadcast service, released the notice at 2020 and currently availabe. So I think the BPC's broadcast time may has just changed. --Kegns (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Go ahead and change it to what ever is correct. Sorry. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you object to my updates on the Andover population page, and if my formatting is off, fine, but why don’t YOU update it to current information? Ksagnostic (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? I already told you that I was going to do it? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 1. Deletion review is all about whether or not the closing admin made a proper close. It is not the place to reargue the case for deletion. Your keep !vote is likely to be seen as just that (as would a delete) and might get ignored as a consequence. The usual !votes are endorse (you agree the admin made a proper decision), overturn (the admin made the wrong decision, for instance through not understanding policy properly or going against consensus in the discussion), and sometimes relist (for instance if the admin closed the discussion too early, or if new evidence has been found not brought to the original RFD). Hope that is helpful to you. SpinningSpark 11:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Just FYI, these dodgy refnames are what the Visual Editor generates when copy-pasting refs. Popcornfud (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a place and the name of a government entity are two different things. Colorado Springs is the name of a place in Colorado. The City of Colorado Springs is the name of a Colorado home-rule municipality and the seat of El Paso County, Colorado. The 2020 Census results are for the City of Colorado Springs. Articles are usually named for a place. You can say Colorado Springs is a great place to live, but you can't say Colorado Springs is a home-rule municipality. See the List of municipalities in Colorado for examples. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a legal document, so please quit wording cities in such a way!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you keep removing my edits. Every flag is an official flag and every digital rendering of them is legitimate. Ismaelmunozice (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... because your edit messed up some things. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your edit = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bartow,_Florida&type=revision&diff=1043372726&oldid=1037025343&diffmode=source

my edit (now) = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bartow,_Florida&type=revision&diff=1043524586&oldid=1043476544&diffmode=source

Thanks for your input at Fairbank, Iowa. As a regular editor of US city articles, you may be interested in Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included?. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got the information from a website owned by the Kansas State Government that was released earlier this year. I cannot find the website as i searched it on a different account at the time. Google says it's around 10,000 but i find that unreasonable. If you can find a reliable source please let me know. TwistedMan1328 (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:TwistedMan1328, thanks for replying! For census references for U.S. articles, the only official source is census.gov. It's possible the numbers you are finding may be for the Fairmount Township instead of the unincorporated community, so keep that in mind. At this time, we should not include a census without a reliable source. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my third revert at Prairie County, Montana. If you are able to look at the page I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I decided to fix the article, and leave a comment to the other editor. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of these edits? These are purely cosmetic and make no difference to article layout. I generally make them in passing while editing articles because removing pointless uppercase makes search-and-replace easier, but if there's some incredibly important reason why you went to the bother of manually reverting them then I'm all ears. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So User:Thumperward, you were changing correct template names and files names to something else, then I restored them. You need to quit changing template names to other aliases!

1) Template:Reflist is the correct template name, not Template:refs as you did.

2) Template:Commons category is the correct template name, not Template:commonscat as you did.

3) "File:DIP switch 01 Pengo.jpg" is the correct file name, not "file:DIP switch 01 Pengo.jpg" with a lower case "f" as you did.

per Thumperward edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DIP_switch&type=revision&diff=1051428994&oldid=1033788974&diffmode=source

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of that edit was to fix the image bunching; the case changes were purely incidental (per the above). I don't know who told you that there is some sort of directive to use the base name of a template (there isn't; using a short alias is fully permitted, which is why we have them in the first place) or that resources need to be referenced with an initial capital (this is a quirk of en-WP's MediaWiki configuration so that articles get capitalised and is absolutely not meant to be definitive), but you should unlearn it now, before you waste any more of your own time (let alone mine, or other editors) undoing completely cosmetic changes on specious grounds. You're an engineer, so presumably the notion of case-insensitive-but-preserving is not some life-changing revelation to you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the point of the edit was fix the image bunching, then you should have just moved the images, but you didn't. I could have ended this comment by trying to use something about you to belittle you, but I didn't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Removing pointless uppercase (and unifying e.g. file: and image:) improves articles by making it easier for future editors to edit them. The same applies to using short aliases for template names. It does not improve them very much, but it is an improvement. While my initial tone here was hostile, I did genuinely hope to find some more concrete reason why they'd been reverted, in case that might adjust my editing patterns in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that you frequently edit Kansas topics, I would like to bring to your attention overnight edits by Love of Corey (talk · contribs). I have corrected some of them but have run out of time and my method of correcting them is rather clumsy. It would appear that "Corey has put a short description on multiple (perhaps all 105) Kansas counties that states that X county is "County in Iowa, United States". I have corrected some of the county pages that I patrol, but there are many left with a erroneous short description. Perhaps you could look into the problem. It would appear that it is an innocent error by a new editor, but it is a far reaching one. Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I corrected one county, then left a message at 12:34 am, see "Love of Corey" talk section. I decided to let that editor take care of this mess, instead of wasting my time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is his mess after all. Had it been out and out vandalism it would have been everyone else's mess. I don't blame you for not getting too involved in the corrections. Both of us have better things to do. Thank you for your timely response. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I "baked" you a digital pie. I've been in this conversation to JUST try and add birth and death dates to all the "Notable people" lists in the USA (as I've done for the ENTIRE states of New Hampshire, Alaska, Wyoming, and part of Delaware), and I was PLANNING on doing the ENTIRE COUNTRY if "allowed", but I was asked to stop by editor Magnolia677 and threatened with being taken to an admin and blocked if I continued without consensus. I appreciate your vote of confidence, it is very helpful, and has relieved some stress for the day. I am still a little unsure as to how exactly "consensus" works... but I hope I "have it" soon and can get back to work without risk of being blocked for supposedly adding "unsourced material" (just copying and pasting birth and death dates from primary biographical articles to the "Notable people" sections)... Never thought such a project that I took upon myself would be SO controversial! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 13:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please be aware that I was only stating my view of the "notable people" section, instead of taking anyones side. In general, my views tend to more often align with Magnolia677, so keep that in mind too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found Newspapers.com was essential in getting sources that help add to school district articles. If you have free time at one point, you could get an account at the Wikipedia Library, get permission to get on Newspapers.com, and start clipping articles that add to info about Kansas districts. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Would you have a moment to look at the edit history at Cary, North Carolina? Most of my recent edits were reverted, and I wouldn't mind a second set of eyes. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article. If I reverted anything you did, sorry. Could you clarify what concerns you have after my edits, so I can go back and look at it again. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence was a bit busy, so I trimmed it a bit. I also removed a photo of a park not located in Cary. As well, I removed "Cary, North Carolina" from all the photo captions, but the editor added them all back. I changed "Effective June 6, 2003, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)" to "in 2003", because it was unnecessary. Basically, every edit I made was reverted. I'll see if you're more successful. Thanks very much for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I was dropping by to thank you for helping edit Cary, North Carolina. I removed some old stuff and was rearranging random stuff; you deleted more which was great. That way, I can't be singled out as the bad guy. LOL. I also think your relocation of some of the dated text from the intro to demographics makes more sense and everything reads better now. Just proves how important a neutral editor can be. Again, thanks.Rublamb (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to KWCH-DT, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks for failing to post a valid reason for reverting! How dare you insult me with this type of reversion comment! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Sbmeirow that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Mvcg66b3r, don't try to put it back on me. I have the right to be ticked off after you sent me a precanned reversion message meant for IP editors and newbies. BTW, if the transmitter tower coords are valid for the article, then so is the studio address, both are a location a thing. Your recent reversion reason wasn't correct either, because the address of Apple Inc. is the infobox of this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbmeirow: Wikipedia is not a directory, so there's no need to go into excessive detail (i.e. an exact street address for a TV station). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r: Sorry, but you are still WRONG. Street addresses are shown in the: infobox of businesses - Apple Inc. / Google / Microsoft; infobox of high schools - Fort Hamilton High School / Long Beach Polytechnic High School / Lane Tech College Prep High School; infobox of museums - American Museum of Natural History / Metropolitan Museum of Art / Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth; infobox of convention centers - Las Vegas Convention Center / McCormick Place / Orange County Convention Center; infobox of amphitheaters - Hollywood Bowl / Azura Amphitheater / Hearst Greek Theatre; infobox of school districts - West New York School District / El Paso Independent School District / Gadsden County School District; infobox of baseball stadiums - Yankee Stadium / Wrigley Field / Dodger Stadium; infobox of government buildings - White House / Lamoille County Courthouse / Suwannee County Courthouse; and there are numerous other examples on Wikipedia too. Also, the exact coordinates of transmission towers are shown in the infobox of TV stations, such as KWCH-DT and numerous others, which is very much an excessive detail too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No response for 7 days, thus I moved the discussion over to KWCH-DT#Location. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to label Quickville a ghost town. It is not. It meets none of the qualifications on the ghost town page of Wikipedia. You are being a troll. Antealtares (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette about name calling. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the amazing work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making additions to The Kansas portal. Note that you placed non-GA-class articles in the GA section, so I had to go through each article that you added, check each article, and then sort the portal out, which is rather time consuming (diff). Also, please do not remove GA-class articles that are already in place. I restored a couple that you removed. In the future, please place non-GA-class articles in the Selected article section. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you noticed my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Ely, Minnesota I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a moment to look at Talk:Akron, Ohio#LeBron James Family Foundation. I'm wondering if I'm way off on this one. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the US Census Bureau maintains very convenient lists of school districts per county, and the Census Bureau lists all school districts with any territory in a given county. The 2020 Census maps for Kansas are here https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/PL20/st20_ks/schooldistrict_maps/ and the 2010 Census maps for Kansas are here https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/sch_dist/st20_ks/. As I don't like dealing with bulky PDF files, the accompanying text files listing all school districts per county are very useful as one can just copy+paste the list, clean it up, and then wikify it, and it's a ready made list of school districts for a county article. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sbmeirow, noticed you hadn't edited for a while and just wanted to check in. Hope all is well and you can return soon. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all is well. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm alive. 3+ month wikivacation after editing for 10 years. It is only a coincidence that I logged back in on the same day you commented. I will be in "catch up mode" for quite a while validating old edit history that I printed about twice a month. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_alerts From a mere IP 174.212.212.123 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did this article used to have a sentence or two concerning the cafe explosion on 25 October 1979 or am I misremembering? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. You can look through the edit history, just like everyone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latham,_Kansas&action=history - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for the cleanup on the Smoky Valley Roller Mills page!

I'm the marketing and communications director (Adam Pracht) now at Lindsborg Old Mill & Swedish Heritage Museum, and I've been trying to at least keep the pages that mention the museum (it had a recent name change in the last few years) and the building assets of the museum on our campus (both the mill and the Swedish Pavilion exist currently) accurate, at a minimum.

There's a lot more that could be said about the museum itself as well as these (and other) historic buildings on our campus, but as I'm on-staff, I hesitate to do large wholesale article expansions and updates, given that they'd run the risk of simply being insta-reverted for reason of me being an "interested party."

I know you do good work and accurate work, with a particular interest in Kansas-related wiki articles.

I was wondering whether I might be able to interest you in looking into expanding and improving our current "stub" articles and/or starting more of a "hub" article on the museum itself and the buildings featured here. I believe your work - as an independent 3rd party - would be more likely to be accepted and not reversed. And we could really use some broader and accurate articles on what's here. (The 1898 roller mill is the only operational mill of this kind in the Midwest and the Swedish Pavilion is one of the few standing structures remaining from the 1904 World's Fair).

If not, that's fine, too. I just thought it might be the sort of thing that would be of interest to you in helping with.

Thanks for considering!

-Adam PrachtOldMill (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson, Kansas has a Republican Marker for instance. Please don't remove the party tags, thanks. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 20:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit the infobox location map to be zoomed a bit more in? Or is it good? I don’t know how to. It is zoomed out so far you can see Ohio which is 4 states away from MN. IP 24.152.189 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I zoom'ed in much closer. Not sure if it is better or not? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't proxy edit for other accounts. This was a WP:LTA socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you know another way to fix the Kansas cities pages, you could do it. I put too much work into them for you to use the going back in history reverting. Spaces? Those are phrases and not sentences. You don't end non-sentences with a period. If you want to take "extra spaces out", fine. Don't separate phrases with a period.Extraordinary2 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not responsiblity to clean up your mess. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIPS codes are not under USGS/gnis and should not be referenced with "ref name="GNIS"". They are under the U.S. Census website. As an example see the Corpus Christi, Texas wiki page. Vsmith (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago, I posted a response to your comment at User_talk:Magnolia677#FIPS_Code. I already explained these things, but you didn't respond.

You are wrong in all three of your points above.

1) There is no rule that says "ref name="GNIS"" is invalid or shouldn't be used.

2) FIPS codes are shown on the "Populated Place" GNIS entry, which is the ones that I have been using. "Populated Place" GNIS entry numbers are the ones that had been in city articles for over a decade. There has been no mandate or discussion to change from GNIS "Populated Place" to GNIS "Civil".

3) The GNIS "Populated Place" entry for Corpus Christi is https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1333380 and clearly it shows the FIPS code of 17000, which is the same number that appears in the infobox at Corpus Christi, Texas.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again!

Would you mind helping me with creating a wikipedia article for Tonganoxie Township, Kansas? I already have some of the basic information down such as population and a general overview of the city. Just in need of some help with getting other things such as maps and images. TwistedMan1328 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I'll be back online soon, I was injured a couple weeks ago. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, I keep thinking of asking you to collaborate on some things ... someday ... IveGoneAway (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me!! I'm back. I need a few days to catch up on things. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you reverting the unbolding. One approach I have to developing relatively small and/or stub topics is to join them. FAA Form 8110-3 is crucial to aviation, but I attached it to the closely related parent FAA Order 8110.37. My understanding is that when a redirect links to a joint page, both the direct and redirect terms are bolded. Similarly, rather than creating stubs for notable geological members, I redirect to the parent formation, but bold the member's name. I do the the same thing especially for old or alternate names of units. Am I correct on that? Another case is one I am working on is AC 20-189, a joint AC with EASA (as most are these days); in no way should AC 00-71 be on a separate page. In Burnett’s Mound, should I live so long, I may link Abrams Burnett, short of giving him a full bio.

Paschal Fish might deserve an article but for now, the topic is appropriately covered in the Eudora page (but I guess there is no bolding for his name, should there be?).

IveGoneAway (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this wordiness, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform layout, as per numerous other city articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I say information is a dish best served concisely and precisely, and numerous wrongs don't make a right. But I wasn't going to press the issue already, and certainly not if it's going to involve however many others. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wut? you didn't justify your change, so quick wasting my time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

99% fad-free (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the pickup. AWB doesn't always get it right however up to me to sort. Consequence of editing when getting a bit tired. Neils51 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elk, Kansas, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elk, Kansas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sbmeirow. Thank you for your work on Barnes–Hanover–Linn USD 223. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit claims to be removing "remove unreliable 'best of' junk". Are you claiming that USA Today and the American Planning Association as reported in the Courier-Post are "unreliable" based on the well-established Wikipedia:Reliable sources standard and that the content would be acceptable with other, more reliable sources, or does "unreliable" mean something different here and in other edits where you've repeated the same edit summary? The words "reliable" and "unreliable" have very specific meanings across Wikipedia. By what standard are you removing this content from this and around a hundred other articles? Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removed reliable and verifiable details in the article for Jersey City, New Jersey, about state and national rankings for one of the city's high schools and has been reverted. I'm still unclear as to why the sources included here have been deemed "unreliable". Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, weighted-rank lists are unreliable, which doesn't mean that all or most other content from a source is unreliable. According to Criticism of college and university rankings (North America)#2020s critiques and U.S._News_&_World_Report_Best_Colleges_Ranking#Criticism there is a significant group that think that U.S. News school ranking isn't reliable. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there are some rating systems that are based on methodologies that you deem "unreliable", therefore all ranking systems are "unreliable" . For no apparent reason, you point to Criticism of college and university rankings (North America)#2020s critiques, a Wikipedia article -- not a policy or a guideline -- which says that some people have criticized the methodology for some of these university rankings. However, there is broad consensus to include these rankings in articles for colleges and universities. Somehow, this is the excuse you use to delete sourced content about rankings, which are all subject to deletion because you found a Wikipedia article that criticizes rankings that we do use in Wikipedia. Can you justify this edit, which removed reliable and verifiable details in the article for Jersey City, New Jersey, about state and national rankings for one of the city's high schools and has been reverted. What's wrong with these rankings? Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow, thanks for your recent edits removing rankings junk from school pages. I have been trying to overcome user:Alansohn's relentless onslaught of trivia and exhausting levels of detail about sports and so on. One problem lies in the local ranking sites or regional magazines he uses as sources; what criteria do you personally use in order to decide if a ranking is serious or junk? --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My initial goal was to remove ranking junk from city / community articles, then while searching I came across numerous school articles, which got me side tracked into removing some of that junk too. In general, any article/book that uses weighted-ranking methods for ranking lists are unreliable, and should be removed from Wikipedia. The percent symbols in articles A and B means they are weighting each subgroup by some percentage, thus if any of those percentages are changed or categories are removed, then school rankings will be completely different. There is no scientific reason why any of these percentages are a specific percentage, thus basically these percentages are opinions of the creators of the lists, which is why they aren't reliable rankings. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this input. I will ping @Alansohn so he can take this into consideration. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Melchior2006. In continuing your relentless onslaught of harassment, stalking me from article to article and talk page to talk page, you have found an editor who offers their own idiosyncratic view of rankings of colleges and universities. Followed to its reductio ad absurdum conclusion, there would be no rankings of anything anywhere, because any ranking system has some element of subjectivity; after all even if a ranking system were based on objective measures, the choices of which elements to include and which entities to rank could shift the results. Yet, there is extremely broad consensus across Wikipedia to include these rankings, despite the mention of arguments Criticism of college and university rankings (North America)#2020s critiques and U.S._News_&_World_Report_Best_Colleges_Ranking#Criticism about the two leading rankings in articles about institutions of higher learning. Now if you could find an actual Wikipedia policy that prohibited the use of rankings based on reliable and verifiable sources, you might be onto something. Alansohn (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the flags from Infoboxes. Someone started this a while back and should be removed. I will remove them as I see them, but I will not specifically seek them out. However, please do not break any links to states/nations. Thanks! StillWatchesCartoons (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links is not breaking links. BTW, well known countries are not suppose to be wiki linked, per MOS:OVERLINK, which is why I removed the wikilink for "United States" in Wichita metropolitan area, Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 14, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes to Wilson, Kansas - Scarpy (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sbmeirow, I noticed you reverted my edit to Majestic, Kentucky. I don't exactly understand why you reverted my edit; all I did was add an image.  Kentuckian |💬   02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit reformatted and mangled the infobox, likely caused by bugs or settings in the visual editor. "Before your edit". After your edit. Until it is fixed, I recommend you edit community infoboxes manually without the visual editor, or maybe disable features in the visual editor to stop this problem (I don't use the visual editor, thus I can't recommend what settings to change). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and your kind and swift response.  Kentuckian |💬   22:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article LM358 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has several issues. Subject is a standard commercial operational amplifier that does not meet Notability criteria, without significant independent coverage.

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. Alan Islas (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You may have an answer. At Minneapolis, I removed "officially the City of Minneapolis" from the lead, and it was reverted. I recall someplace that these official names were to be avoided. Do you know where the policy is (may be just for the infobox). Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed, because Wikipedia isn't a legal document, which is why "City of NAME" shouldn't be spammed every where instead of just the common "NAME". Yes, there was discussions at some point about this topic in the infobox, but it should be inferred to apply to INTRO section too. Years ago, someone added the legal phrase to all of the Colorado communities, and I've been incrementally removing this junk over a long period of time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and copy (mostly) what I've said to others:

• Go to Preferences > Gadgets > scroll to Advanced > Install scripts without having to manually edit Javascript files.
• Then click on install on this gadget: User:Terasail/COI Request Tool

The edit request tools are split among two gadgets, and they make answering edit requests a lot easier, so you don't have to switch answered=y to clear the edit request queue.⸺(Random)staplers 19:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't want to install gadgets, make sure you set {{Edit COI}} to {{Edit COI|answered=yes}}, like on Talk:AGCO.

⸺(Random)staplers 18:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for letting me know! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I'm micheals great nephew. The company has ceased operations. Natepearl0172 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but the website still exists, thus we need some type of announcement on the internet that says it's no longer in business, so we can add a reference so anyone can validate the statement. 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Sbmeirow, I had another request for the AGCO article I was hoping you might be willing to look at since you had answered a few of my past requests. If not, no worries! I really appreciate your help. Cheers AGCO Monaco (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just wondering how you feel about edits like this? I see them on many county articles, and they all have an unencyclopedic tone; like someone looked at the chart, and tried to interpret what's on the chart (regardless of whether it's pro Dem or pro Republican). Maybe it's just me. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger problem was the table had two wrong values for 2024. I've seen those types of edits in the past in Kansas counties. Yeah, kind of too much commentery fluff. I simplified it. We should be checking the data, because that is important to get right. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these tables were added by this blocked editor. I see you also interacted with them. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there are 2 issues, one if whether the data in the tables is correct or not, and the other is the textual description of it. I have mixed feelings about the text, and not really an expert at what to say about it. On the other hand, I do want to know if the data is correct or not, if there are too many errors, then we have have to suspect there are problems in other county articles. We probably should check some of his tables to determine if what I caught was a accidental fluke or systemic across many articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me with Comodo Internet Security. I'm sure there are countless other helpful edits that I haven't seen. Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to help me citing some sources and finding some reliable sources for the Basehor, Kansas article? As of right now, the history section for the City of Basehor is completely blank, and other than on the City of Basehor website, there is no offical history listed for the City of Basehor on any other website. Your help would be greatly appreciated. TwistedMan1328 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, but I have too many other things on my list that I haven't completed on Wikipedia. See comment on your user page too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again! Sorry to bother.

Would you or someone else possibly be able to review my draft that I made for Basehor-Linwood USD 458? This is the third article ive ever created, and I just want to make sure that it meets the standards so that it can become an official article.

I understand you may be busy, as you said in the other message on your talk page, so if you can reference me to someone who can, I would appreciate that as well.

Thank you! I hope that this finds you well! TwistedMan1328 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow, just wanted to let you know that I put up another request for the AGCO article you might be interested in. I appreciate all your help! AGCO Monaco (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow, I made an update to that request based on your feedback if you'd like to take another look. Cheers AGCO Monaco (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow, I wanted to let you know if you were interested that I made a request for the AGCO article (hopefully the last for a while) that you may be interested in. I also put together a draft on Eric Hansotia, the CEO, that I think is close to meeting requirements for a new article but am not entirely sure. If you have any feedback on it I'd love to know what you think. I appreciate all your help! AGCO Monaco (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow, just wanted to pop by and see if you had any interest in reviewing this request for the AGCO article and/or offering feedback on a draft I wrote about Eric Hansotia, the company CEO. Thanks again for all your help! AGCO Monaco (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not interested in high-level corporate topics. In general, I'm interested more about the manufacturing locations than the corporate stuff. The main reason I sometimes edit the AGCO article is because I grew up on a farm in the Hesston, KS region, and I still have classmates and friends that are still farmers. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to report the matter at AIV. As the edits may well be well intentioned and as they stopped after your final warning, a block has not been used, but a note has been left on the editor's talk page. You may wish to raise the issue at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard but if it continues without further discussion, then please feel free to re-report at AIV. TigerShark (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow,Would you consider reverting more (all) of the edits of the user? This seems to be a case of "Wikipedia backlink SEO." When I search the web for that phrase, I find articles describing how to do what the user basically did. The user makes a good point mentioning that some articles are not available globally and the solution of using archive.org has been suggested. Let me know if I should follow up elsewhere. Cxbrx (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Thanks Cxbrx. In my opinion, most of it should be reverted, but then again I'm not an expert on policy for this type of situation, instead other wiki experts probably should make the decision and decide what to do about it. Per this article, it sounds like a server can detect when someone is accessing it via TOR, which made me wonder if that user was being blocked by ksdot.org because it was accessed via TOR. Since I'm not in another country, I can't validate the claim by the other editor, though some trusted wiki editor in another country could determine if they can see content from ksdot.org (while not using TOR or VPN) to resolve this question. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, no worries on the delay. Who do you feel I should contact about getting these reverted? Cxbrx (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown, so it looks like I need to do it. I'll look at it soon. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand, thanks for everything! AGCO Monaco (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good reports. Thanks! Feel invited to keep me apprised if you see such activity elsewhere in your watchlist. Vandals like familiar targets. I gave protection the same duration to discourage the disruption in an easier to measure manner. BusterD (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! My first guess was User:TylerKutschbach or someone in his crew was the IP culprit, since that account added election tables to county articles about 5 years ago. In a related note, we need to find a replacement for uselectionatlas.org references in all wikipedia articles in case there is some type of connection between this editor and website. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbmeirow! I wanted to check that you've seen the replies on Diolaneiuma215's talk page, given that you made a similar revert on the 3rd. This seems to be a result of the visual editor, and does not actually affect how the infobox appears. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn't change how the infobox appears on the webpage doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Since you are now aware of the issue, you should use the source editor to add content to the infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a moment to look at Lee's Summit, Missouri. Also the talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It commenced yesterday on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $300 top prize for doing articles on populated places and geography. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! Feel free to invite others who you think might want to contribute.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Seeing that you contributed to the MSP432 article, I thought you might be interested in this matter. As you may know, TI announced EOL for MSP432, and replaced it with MSPM0. I wrote an article about it, and linked to it from TI MSP432. The MSPM0 article has been available since April under TI MSPM0 , but recently someone reverted it to Draft:TI MSPM0. This obviously breaks the link from TI MSP432, so it's confusing to someone trying to figure out the current TI offerings.

The justification for downgrading the article was that it needs more sources to establish notability. I respectfully disagree, but I don't want to start a revert fight so I thought I would ask someone for a third-party look. Please let me know if you can help. Przemek Klosowski (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a new article to stick, then you need to add references to almost every sentence. This is probably the top tip that I would recommend to almost everyone. Also, as you may have learned, you need to support 3rd party references too, not just TI.com only references. I put a watch on your article. I'll try to help from time to time, but I can't make any promises, because I have my own list of things that need to get done too... never enough time to get everything done. Good luck. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have done a lot of work on all of the following too...

• Arduino Uno#Arduino board comparison : I created this entire table from scratch.

• Arduino Nano#Arduino board comparison : I created this entire table from scratch.

• ATtiny microcontroller comparison chart : I completely overhauled this table long ago.

• ARM Cortex-M : I did quite a lot of work on this entire article long ago.

• STM32 : I did quite a lot of work on this entire article long ago.

• • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits; I added some primary references that are not from TI and submitted for review. Fingers crossed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Przemek Klosowski (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are removing previous census details. I often see multiple decades of census details on articles, but believed there was some hidden rule against removing them. If you haven't had any pushback, I'll start as well.

Also, I have been removing the long presidential election details from city articles when I encounter them, as there is nothing in WP:USCITIES that recommends adding them. What's your opinion on this?

Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone else doing it. I previously did it on some kansas articles, but forgot that I did it until tonight. I'm ONLY thinning down to 2 decades in Kansas articles (if 2020 is missing then I'm not thinning down to 1 decade), because there is enough space for the census table for Kansas articles. For older states in eastern USA, they might need that extra decade since their census tables are longer. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Kansas articles, they mostly don't exist in city articles, but there could be some. For Kansas, I went through all of the Kansas county articles and "HIDE" the crazy long presidential tables to fix the layout. If I come across the same issue on city articles for Kansas communities, I'll likely just hide the tables instead of deleting the information. If you want to know how I did it, see Sedgwick County, Kansas#Government. I borrowed that stuff from an events building article that hide a long list of concerts, I think all I did was tweak the text that appears for my presidential repurposing. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:County#Content suggestions it suggests adding them to county articles, but I agree it is much cleaner when hidden. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, DemocraticLuntz added "Presidential Election Results" text to that WP:County article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The Long Night (TV series) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 15 § The Long Night (TV series) until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park City, Kansas and Park City, Utah have the same name. You won't be confused doesn't mean everyone won't. In fact, some people are searching about the Utah city and they came to the wrong article. 2600:1700:9780:DC0:586E:C5A1:BF57:C224 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I fixed the problem, by adding a link to the disambiguation page, because Park City exists in other states too, not just Utah. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus" is not as widely known as "Earning", also, " Salt City" and "Salt Lake City" have very similar names. 2600:1700:9780:DC0:A9A1:5682:EB91:ED0B (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson will never be confused with Salt Lake City, Utah. Hutchinson doesn't even have Lake in its name. Also, there are numerous salt related communities all over the world. It seems to me that you are overly promoting links to Utah, which is a red flag of its own. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance on the article over Basehor, Kansas, and fixing some of my errors. I'm still new to Wikipedia, so any tips and tricks would be much appreciated, along with constructive criticism. Thanks again for the help, it's much appreciated! Jackson 913 (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this go to an RFC? Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of issue probably should be discussed at a higher-level to bring in input from wiki experts outside of school groups. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have edited Española, New Mexico in the past. Would you have a moment to look at Talk:Española, New Mexico#Disputed image. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately it is current community consensus to require independent sources, per the most recent RfC on the topic - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. You and I may disagree with the outcome, but the close is clear that independent sources are required for these tables.

There is an unrelated RfC regarding these tables ongoing at the moment - depending on the outcome, I plan to hold one on the sourcing standards… hopefully we can go back to using reliable primary sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added one sentence of text, which is not a table, thus the old RfC doesn't apply to it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way round it - hopefully the RfC can be done soon enough and we can use primary sources again…. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should Culpeper, Virginia, go to an RfC? I'm not sure the squeeze is worth the juice, but would appreciate your opinion. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a disagreement over content with which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Culpeper".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]