User talk:Sbmeirow/Archive/2017

Menu

1. User Home
2. User Talk Home
3. User Talk Archive Home

Talkback

Hello, Sbmeirow. You have new messages at Talk:Invertebrate.
Message added 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Seagull123 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Utqiaġvik/Barrow RM

You recently participated in a discussion regarding the title of Utqiaġvik/Barrow, Alaska. There is currently a move request discussion of the article's title at Talk:Utqiaġvik, Alaska, if you care to participate. — User:AjaxSmack 20:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Now at a new section. — User talk:AjaxSmack 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Overland Park, Kansas

Hey Sbmeirow, the reason you gave for removing "Overland park is a suburb of Kansas City, Missouri" is not justification enough for me. It has caused some minor edit wars but nothing major. You yourself have been the many if not most of the removals. Anyways, even if it did it's no reason to remove factual information. Is there another reason? Thanks. User:Grey Wanderer 18:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia tends to prefer neutral wording to avoid edit wars. • User:Sbmeirow • 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

2) The text previously said "second most populous city in the Kansas City metropolitan area", thus the suburb statement is redundant, which is another reason I didn't list. • User:Sbmeirow • 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

3) My statement about KC edit wars is a general statement of all cities on the Kansas side of the border, not just Overland Park article. In past years, there was long term edit wars in different city articles that would bounce back and forth between something with Missouri and another version without the word Missouri. After I went through all city articles on the Kansas side and changed their wording to "Kansas City metropolitan area" the silly edit war stopped completely, because it is a neutral term that isn't state specific. • User:Sbmeirow • 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There should be a clear reference to the central city of the metropolitan area, not just to the metropolitan area itself. This is especially important when it's confusing which city that is (as is the case in KC). Without a mention of the central city I don't think suburban Kansas City Metropolitan Area articles are adhering to WP:Neutral. This is how it should be for all cities in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. There are several Kansas editors who dislike any mention of Kansas City, Missouri as the central city of the metropolitan area. This is perfectly natural, but unfortunately does a disservice to honest and informative articles. In reference to your second point it's not redundant if it provides more information. User:Grey Wanderer 19:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I just now looked at all the Missouri city metro articles. Amazing, throwing rocks at cities on the Kansas side of the river before doing the same for cities on the Missouri side of the river. • User:Sbmeirow • 11:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Pawnee, Kansas and First Territorial Capitol of Kansas

An article that you have edited--Pawnee, Kansas--has been proposed for merging into First Territorial Capitol of Kansas. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. User:RM2KX 01:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Book link at Pawnee, Kansas

Hi Sbmeirow,

The book link you reattached was not removed, just relocated under See also. You have it listed as "See also" under the heading "Further reading," so I was eliminating only the redundancy. If you want to keep it as you have it, please delete it from the "See also" list so it isn't in two places. Thanks! User:RM2KX 01:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

ohhhh, I didn't notice that it moved. • User:Sbmeirow • 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:USCITIES guideline, the book section is "Further reading", which is where I prefer it to be located, even if a template is pointing to another article. BTW, though it is called a city guideline, it is meant for all types of communities in USA, including unincorporated communities and ghost towns, though for those articles many sections will never exist. The section naming and ordering is the same for all of them. • User:Sbmeirow • 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In the past, for communities in Kansas, I use to put more books in the "Further reading" section, including books for county and state, but there was too much duplication and it was hard to make changes. Over time, I have moved to a new method that is easier to maintain for communities in Kansas, which is I only put books that are 100% specific to a community in that communities article (for example, "History of Pawnee Kansas" if such a book existed), then I put all county and state books in the county article, plus a 2nd copy of the city books in the county article too, then I place a link to the book section of the county article in each community of that county. This makes it much easier to maintain books for all community and township articles for a given county. I convert the old format to the new format as I come across them over time. • User:Sbmeirow • 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. That makes a lot of sense! Thanks for your tips, and for the link to the old map--sweet find! I hope you don't mind that I'm a[nother] Missourian pushing into Kansas. I just drove out to see Gen. Eisenhower in Abilene last month, and climb the dome in Topeka, and I would have stopped to see the Pawnee site if I could have. Maybe next time.
User:RM2KX 11:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Aztec, New Mexico

My apologies for cross-editing while you were working on Aztec, New Mexico, but I think most everything Ekotyk has done in the last few days has been damaging, including the persistent copyright violations and unsourced promotional passages about the area's natural splendor. I'm very close to asking for a lock on the page or a block on the editor, and think it needs to revert to its 'pre-Ekotyk' version, but wanted to drop you a line first. Thanks, Special:Contributions/2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 03:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a note. Yes, I noticed the overlapping edits about the time I had to leave, so no concern to me. Should give some tips or warning on that user page before locking the city article. I don't care if you want to revert. I can restore my changes to infobox afterward. I'm not a member of New Mexico group, but instead member of Kansas group that edits Kansas community and Kansas related articles. I picked one or more random cities from each state in central USA to watch edits in the hopes to find new "edit trends" in other state articles. As a side affect I cleanup vandalism and bad edits, plus I'll do minor cleanup from time to time. In this case, Aztec was one of the random cities that I'm watching in New Mexico, and I don't have any ties to the city. • User:Sbmeirow • 07:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

At no time did I think you had a conflict of interest--I just was concerned about stepping on your edits to get at the overriding problems there. Thanks and cheers, Special:Contributions/2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Himalayan salt

Hi,

How's it going?

I noticed you altered my recent edit to Himalayan salt.

I'll just tell you my rationale for the edit I made.

The section in question, after your edit, reads as follows:

"Numerous claims have been made concerning salt lamps, but there is no scientific evidence that prove these beliefs or benefits... • no proof of air cleaning • no proof of medical benefits • no proof of ions emitted • no proof of "positive energy waves" • no proof of "neutralizing electromagnetic radiation"

I intentionally put quote marks only around “positive energy” because that, as a concept, makes no rational, scientific sense, and moreover is a horribly weasely term. The concepts of both waves, and of neutralizing electromagnetic radiation (though of course as claims they are just as false as the other stuff) at least mean something as concepts, and lack the weasel-termyness of "positive energy". Therefore, in my opinion, “positive energy” (whether ostensibly in “waves” or not) is a special case and is the only thing in that list that really cries out for quote marks.

Let me know what you think on my talk page please, and please don't be offended if I change it back if I don't hear back from you.

Kind regards, --User:TyrS 14:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Interrupt handler

Feel free to revert any and all of my un-referenced additions to interrupt handler if you think that improves the article over how it now stands.

Note that the previous scope of the article was insufficient, whether referenced or not referenced. If the goal here is to arrive at a sufficient article, which should come first? Clearly this article wasn't attracting necessary editorial attention in its previous form.

It would take me an entire day to hunt down references for what I learned over thirty years of working on microcontrollers off and on. I don't have that day for this project. I do hunt down references all the time for my smaller edits, because on those edits I'm learning as I go, rather than restudying material I already know cold.

I've already put a dated comment in the talk page concerning my large addition. If this work is reverted in toto, an enterprising future editor can still dig it up and salvage anything of merit.

My preference is that someday pares the new text down by about 30% so that any OR inherent from my too many decades of history is less self-evident, while also leaving it obvious that the new scope deserves a better high-level organization. In the profession of editing, structural editing is a different job description from content editing. The hope here is that such a person comes along. The previous version failed to attract content editors, so personally, I would try out this new approach for a while to see how it goes. — user:MaxEnt 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Cities Project, Canada

Good afternoon, Sbmeirow. I noted on the Cities project page that you were very helpful to someone working on an article about a small town in the USA.

Would you agree to take a look at the lead for one in Canada? West Montrose, Ontario.

I have been working to improve many articles about small towns in Ontario, Canada including West Montrose, Ontario. When I first got involved (March 29) there was not a single citation. I added new content and added citations. Suddenly, we have a long, ongoing argument at the Talk page about the very short lead. Because the Talk content is so extensive, and hence confusing, it's tough to get anyone from the Feedback Service involved to try to cut through all that and help us get a Consensus.

The only real issues (as I see them) are:

1. Does this community have Old Order Mennonites who drive horse and buggies. (That content was in the article since 2007 and I did not change it. I just added citations.) Very recently however, this became a huge item of contention.

2. Is the community just a small core with a bridge and a few houses or is it a more extensive area. (The citations confirm that this rural farming region with a few small villages has many Old Order Mennonites but because West Montrose is tiny, they do not specifically say that this community has the Mennonites. I live very close to West Montrose and I often see their horse and buggy rigs go by the entrance to the core of West Montrose.)

3. There were also debates as to what is, or is not, a reliable source, although I believe we have a consensus (though definitely not unanimous!) as to which are reliable sources.

The actual content of the lead is very short but the Talk section goes on and on and on with debates. (Admittedly, some of those are my posts.) Cheers! User:Peter K Burian 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Canadian community article layout. The layout and expectations of what is proper content varies from country to country. I took a stab at making some changes, but I'm not sure if people will like them or not. I don't want to get involved in the discussions, because I already have too many other articles to watch and edit. • User:Sbmeirow • 00:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Typos in Kansas

Hi. I noticed that there's a particular typo that appears in several of the Kansas articles you created: "is provied." Because it appears in the same part of each article, it may come from a framework or template you've been using, and keep getting copied. I'd thought you'd like to know. User:BlackcurrantTea 07:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I reverted your edits at Volland, Kansas and Wilmington, Kansas. If you have an issue with the template, you may want to start a discussion Template talk:Wide image. You've also never edited either of those two articles before, but likely followed me there after reverting my Paxico, Kansas edit. If you have a concern with my edits, leave a message or warning on my talk page. But following an editor so you can made dubious reverts is not cool. Thanks for your careful understanding. User:Magnolia677 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to take that slander back. I look at every edit of every Kansas community and most Kansas-related articles. • User:Sbmeirow • 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take it back. User:Magnolia677 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Over many years, I've been plowing through Kansas community article and trying to convert them to a uniform layout. The infobox cleanup has taken many years, and I'm still not done. Each year, I pick one or two topics then do it to every city in Kansas. I have a couple of more things to do to city articles in 2017/2018, then I'll move over to going through every unincorporated communities in 2018 or 2019. I have touched many Kansas unincorporated community articles, but I haven't stepped through all of them as a specific goal yet. • User:Sbmeirow • 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Warnings