User talk:Sbmeirow/Archive/2014

__NOINDEX__



Menu

 * 1) User Home
 * 2) User Talk Home
 * 3) User Talk Archive Home

Project Kansas
Okay, fellow Project Kansas Wikipedian, what is the problem with my latest edits on Olpe, Peru and Eskridge? Most of the citations don't have any consistent format and I was merely trying to establish some kind of order to the articles. It almost seems like if anyone makes a change to "your" articles you have to have it changed back to your way of doing things. I was merely trying to add information to the articles that wasn't there before in a logical way and was toying with the idea of adding a bit more information to a couple of other articles that I ran across. There is a difference between a reference and a citation. If there was a problem with my style of edits, I would have appreciated the courtesy of contacting me about my errors so that I could explain my thinking or see the error of my edits. I am an experienced editor with many new articles contributed using a very similar style of citations and references that I attempted to introduce in the aforementioned articles. I won't revert these articles, but in the future I would appreciate some sort of notice if you have a problem with my editing style or entries that I make. We can work together to make Project Kansas something to be proud of or we can work at cross purposes. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The primary reason I changed it was the format strayed from the typical layout of a high percentage of city articles, especially cities from Kansas. I have been using Wikipedia USCITY as a rough guideline, though mostly trying to ensure some type of uniformity across all the Kansas articles.  I thought that an article was suppose to stick with a specific style unless discussed to change the style?  I have noticed that Biography articles and some other types of articles use a different cite scheme than city and technical articles, so I try to stick with the style used with what ever is already being used...though I might be wrong in this assumption and other assumptions about cites and refs?  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not wrong about sticking with a style that is already being used, but the three articles are all start class articles with little content and no consistent citation format even in the same article. If they were B-class articles with an established format, it would be right to talk about proposed changes to citations on the article talk page and see what, if any, response was received. It's OK, I was just surprised at the revert, that's all... It's Kansas Day...have a good productive happy Kansas Day my fellow Kansan... Cuprum17 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

James Randi
Until the project is completed the reference is inappropriate as it is WP:CRYSTALBALL, if you find a different one please add that one. As it stands now it would be more appropriate to remove the item or add a "pending" to it. Kickstarter is not considered WP:RS as far as I can tell. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ha Ha Ha, the funniest thing that I've read today! It says right here on Kickstarter that it will premiere next month at the TRIBECA 2014 Film Festival, so it's not crystal ball.  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/220588101/an-honest-liar-the-amazing-randi-story/posts  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 03:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad you found it humourous but you have have completely ignored the part about it not being WP:RS. Instead of beating a dead horse and sticking to the same source that was being contested you could have looked for a different (better) one. I have added a source. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't Crystal Ball and it's a Reliable Source. Moving discussion back to Talk:James Randi, where it belongs.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Airports
You may find this link helpful on the Airport page format here on Wikipedia. WikiProject_Airports Also, in response to your edit, it is redundant information as a list of destination is in the chart above it, you don't need double information, it is sloppy. Hope this helps. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to your project, but I don't see any official guidelines, like the WP:USCITY guideline, which specifies the section names / order / contents for cities. Per the table, the existing table "sucks" because the destination column isn't sortable, seriously "what the heck", otherwise I wouldn't have added another table!!!  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 20:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Service award progress#Feedback
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Service award progress. I've changed the template quite a bit based on your feedback and that of other users and thought you might be interested in (possibly) giving feedback on the new version. APerson (talk!) 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Larkinburg, Kansas
I need help figuring out if Larkinburg, Kansas is in Jackson County, as the article says, or is really in Atchison County. Google Maps gives the same location even if I specify Jackson or Atchison county.- Gilliam (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I figured it out. I was confused because it is in Jackson County, but it was apparently in Atchison County when the post office was established.- Gilliam (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are/were multiple "unincorporated communities" and ghost towns that share the same name, so you have to be careful about this problem. This is one of the reasons why you see communities change their name at the point where they incorporated into a city, because there can't be two cities with the same name.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Leavenworth, Kansas
Steve, I am really new to Wikipedia but have a lot of background knowledge of the state of Kansas because I worked as a reporter for 10 years and now I work for the City of Leavenworth in communications. So, I'm starting off with some Leavenworth-based items by editing a little bit and correcting fact errors and adding some Kansas photos. I also tried my first Article for Creation for the Leavenworth Riverfront Community Center, which was rejected twice but I am still working on it. I was wondering if you could give advice? I'm happy to correct items, but I discovered one of the editors who rejected it the second time is no longer an active Wikipedia user, as listed on his/her talk page. I am extremely well-versed in editing information for writing, but the coding aspects and Wikipedia user knowledge is brand new to me!Melissa Bower (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to approach the article primarily as a "historical building" instead of its current use. I think the building is listed here but I'm not sure, since I'm not an expert on your city, see National Register of Historic Places listings in Leavenworth County, Kansas.  Hmmmm, might consider using the historical name, or something close to it, like: "Leavenworth Union Pacific Depot" or "Union Pacific Depot (Leavenworth)" or "Union Pacific Depot (Leavenworth, Kansas)", be aware someone might rename the article to make it have a similar naming format as other depots, so don't get hung up on the article name.  Minimize the marketing fluff, so it doesn't sound like an advertisement, which editors on Wikipedia hate.  Need to find the NRHP reference number and links to the NRHP digitized documents, similar to how I did in Peabody Township Library....I plan to expand this article since my home town paper recently digitized historical newspaper, so now I have more references.  The NRHP docs are proof of notability to help prevent people deleting the article.  You need to find more printed and online sources to provide additional historical references....the more the better.  I did a high percentage of the Peabody, Kansas article and expanded it over multiple years, also I've created the following article which might give you some ideas User:Sbmeirow of the amount of references that you need in an article.  References are extremely important on Wikipedia!  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Look...
I don't want to be the bad guy (I've had enough of that recently) and I don't want to start an edit war. But the question of whether or not the Slender Man is an urban legend is complex, nuanced and, given what's been done in Slendy's name, potentially dangerous- people are more scared of urban legends than they are of fictional characters. A single namecheck in one source isn't enough. What I would like to settle this is a source [like this; one that deals with the parsing between urban legend and fiction and draws clear lines. Unfortunately, I can't use that source, as it's only a graduate essay. [[User:Serendipodous| Serendi ]]pod ous  18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Parted Magic
I ran out of characters in the edit summary, but I hope I got my point across. In your recent edit to Parted Magic, you claimed that the article was not about Partition Magic. Can you please resubmit that edit with reliable, third-party sources that discuss the confusion between Parted Magic and Partition Magic? I think a section that discusses possible confusion between similarly-named products would significantly improve the article. Neil916 (Talk) 09:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know the history of the "Parted Magic" name, but the very first time I heard of it years ago, I thought they spoofed the "PartitionMagic" name. I added a template at the top, similar one that is used in Wichita County, Kansas, and other similar types of article that have similar sounding names.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 13:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lego Mindstorms EV3 external link
Hi, Sbmeirow. I've reverted the addition of a link at the Lego Mindstorms EV3 as it is a child page of the Official Site, even though they appear to be at different addresses. When I visit the Official website, I see a Support option in the bottom right corner and clicking it takes me to the added support link, which makes the new link unnecessary. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No matter how easy the 2nd link can be found, it doesn't automatically mean that it shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is suppose to be about quickly finding useful information, and a FAQ is useful (even if one level deep from home page), but I guess delete-happy editors have another view. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 08:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The first time, I couldn't understand the comment, so I guessed and removed one of the links, so that one doesn't count, because I tried to correct it, seriously. The second time, my link was removed without giving any reason for the removal, so I treated it as vandalism.  No edit comment = No reason.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Really, we don't use edit comments for discussion, we use the talk page. The principle is BRD, not BRRD, BRRRD, BRRRRD etc. Please engage on the talk page.LeadSongDog come howl!  00:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe YOU don't, but its extremely common by large numbers of editors to save time. Giving a clear reason in the comment field is NOT a discussion....it's a reason why you did it.  Why should I have to ask why someone deleted it, when they were TOO LAZY to provide an EXACT REASON when they did it?  Why the heck have a comment field, huh, seriously why?  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ARM
I just wanted to say that you have been doing some really nice work on the ARM pages, and that your efforts are very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guy! Thanks for all your edits too, because I see your edits in various technical articles too.  I've done some editing on all the ARM articles, but its too much work to tackle all of them.  I've done a lot, but still its barely a dent in where ARM articles need to end up.  I'm mainly concentrating on lower-level microcontroller cores (Cortex-M) instead of higher-level microprocessor cores (Cortex-A) or (Cortex-A5x).  I love microcontrollers, so that's where I'll invest most of my time in the ARM articles.  I'll keep chipping away at them as I find time.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See-also pseudoscience lists
A heads up that per MOS:SEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." - if a pseudoscience-related article has the pseudoscience template at the bottom, then that already contains the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience link and you shouldn't repeat it as a see-also section. (If it doesn't have the template, then perhaps it should.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Heads up per... "I didn't know that link was in the pseudoscience nav box"!!! Since multiple navboxes don't auto-expand, then I didn't know, nor have I looked at the contents of the pseudoscience navbox.  The downside of navboxes that include the "kitchen sink" is people don't see the content of those navboxes because they aren't expanded, where they ALWAYS see wikilinks in "see also".  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kansas small town populations
Thanks for correcting the mistakes I made while adding some population data to Kirwin and Galena. Besides, it felt sort of weird removing the note about the Decennial Census anyway.

Nonetheless, the way you corrected my mistake currently shows two external links after the population evolution chart: one of the original Decennial Census link, and the other being the Kansas population data pdf that I added. Another idea for that area of the population table is that the Decennial Census link can be kept as is, while the pdf I added could be a citation with a numbered footnote. Doyou think that's a good idea, or not so much? Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't thought about it much and don't have an final answer at this late at night. I already saved your link in my notes at User:Sbmeirow/RecommendedChangesToArticlesFor2010Census so I could think about it some more before coming up with a new format before updating some cities.  I was the person that manually updated every city in Kansas with 2010 Census data, and might do it again after the 2015 estimate is released.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pilger, Nebraska
I see that you've reverted my removal of the motto for Pilger, Nebraska, with the edit summary "whether you like it or not, it came from the official website".

I removed it because, at the time, there was no citation to indicate that it was from the official website. In my edit summary, I stated this: "Rm nickname as unsourced". You've fixed that by adding a citation.

I will continue to remove mottoes, slogans, nicknames, etc., if they don't carry citations. I have a great many Nebraska communities on my watchlist, and experience suggests that these lines in the infobox are magnets for vandalism, high-school humor, and OR. -- Ammodramus (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You could've easily spent a few seconds checking their official website, but you didn't. Yes, I agree motto's, slogans, nicknames are easily vandalized and should be cleaned up.  Still you should at least check the official website, because many times mottos are plain as day on a home page, but that is not always the case.  I'll check the home page and quickly click around their website to find the quotes, and if I can't easily find it, then and only then will I delete it, otherwise I'll add a reference to prove it.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •


 * I'd be more inclined to invest the time and effort to search for a reference if I thought that the information was at all critical. Per MOS:INFOBOX, "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize key facts that appear in the article".  I seriously question whether the nickname is a "key fact", and I note that it's almost never included in the body of the article.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency to design infobox templates with lots of lines, and then to fill in as many of the lines as possible.  The result is that infoboxes all too often become lengthy compilations of minor details rather than brief summaries of the most essential facts in the article. -- Ammodramus (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways
Thanks for all the work on Solar Roadways (company). I hate it when companies use Wikipedia for publicity purposes (although I'm not accusing them of doing this directly). Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of this article until I saw someone try to use a link to this article in a blog as proof of some cost estimate statements. If "Solar Roadways group/company" doesn't list the prices on their website, then all costs are considered speculation, thus those types of statements don't belong in the article.  The article in now on my watch list, so I'll be watching all edits very closely.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways. Thanks. -- Green  C  20:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Solar Roadways

Blue Skyways unavailable?
It looks like the Blue Skyways website has been discontinued. Of course, that will affect the majority of KS-related articles. http://kslib.info/1013/Blue-Skyways-Transition - Gilliam (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it sucks. I assume most of them are archived on https://archive.org/ so look up the URL and fix links as you come across them.  We can't do anything about it, except fix the links and find new links for each article.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 08:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Today, I'm starting a multi-pass effort to cleanup county articles. I'll update one specific thing for each county on each pass, then start over and do the next thing.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

See also links
According to WP:SEEALSO, See Also sections are not supposed to include links that are already linked to from the article text: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Location-map captions
I notice that several of your recent edits to articles about municipalities, e.g. this one, have changed the location-map caption from "Location of X" to "Location of X within County and State".

Could I suggest that you use, instead, the more specific "...within Y County and (name of state)", like this? This gives the reader more specific information; and there are cases in which a community lies in more than one county, and the map only shows it in one (e.g. Emerson, Nebraska).

If you're disinclined to do this, could you please lowercase "county" and "state"? Per MOS:CAPS (which begins with the sentence "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization"), section "Institutions", such generic uses of the words should be lowercased. Thanks— Ammodramus (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be like this article: Florence, Kansas •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Kansas census-designated places
Hi-User:The Catalyst31 has a list of census-designated places and there is one census-designated place in Kansas that needs an article. Wilroads Gardens in Ford County, Kansas. I thought you might be interested since you have done articles about unincorporated communities in Kansas. Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't find the user, but I'll try to find some time on the article. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for doing the article-RFD (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ESU Athletics article
Hello. Since you have made some edits to the article, I was wondering what you thought about a requested move on the ESU Hornets page? I moved it without a consensus, and it's been reverted back (I know I did it without it being discussed), but I really think that the "Lady Hornets" should be used in the title. Thanks,  Corkythehornetfan  '' Question? '' 02:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like my opinion varied from yours. I think the article title should be short and generic like "Emporia State Sports", but I don't think this is typical on other colleges.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine.. I just wanted other opinions! I agree about the "sports" thing, though. It would definitely make it easier! I'm just not sure all Wikipedians would agree.  Corkythehornetfan   Question?  02:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)