User talk:Sbmeirow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
27 February 2017


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

ARM Cortex-M[edit]

TI Stellaris Launchpad showing LM4F120H (ARM Cortex-M4F) MCU.JPG
Energy Micro Woder Gecko STK showing EFM32WG990F256 (ARM Cortex-M4F) MCU.JPG
Freescale FRDM-KL25Z board with KL25Z128VLK (ARM Cortex-M0+ MCU).JPG
NXP LPC800-MAX Board with LPC812(ARM Cortex-M0+ MCU).jpg

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)

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! • SbmeirowTalk • 17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. • SbmeirowTalk • 15:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Uploaded [ARM Cortex-M] ICs, LPCXpresso photos. See my talk page. FossMCU (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded ARM Cortex-M4F starter kits photos. Use these for Cortex-M4 section. See photos. FossMCU (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! • SbmeirowTalk • 07:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Cortex-M0+ dev board photo. Use it if relevant for the article. FossMCU (talkcontribs) 09:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Another M0+ board FossMCU (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors is by ARM Ltd not by Canonical. Launchpad is a platform offered by Canonical for FOSS development. See #1 FossMCU (talk)

Barnstar for you[edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Thanks! • SbmeirowTalk • 08:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback rights[edit]

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)

Wikipedia Library signup[edit]

Hi Sbmeirow,

Thanks for applying for one of the free 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 so they can activate your subscription. If you're no longer interested in, please let me know. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC) again[edit]

Hi Sbmeirow, I was just wondering if you'd like to reconsider withdrawing your application for a 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)

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. • SbmeirowTalk • 23:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, will do! Thanks, HazelAB (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for work on US City project[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Thanks! • SbmeirowTalk • 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Congratulations! Fstiennon (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! • SbmeirowTalk • 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Overland Park, Kansas[edit]

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. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia tends to prefer neutral wording to avoid edit wars. • SbmeirowTalk • 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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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. Grey Wanderer (talk) 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. • SbmeirowTalk • 11:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You've been busy sir![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg 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: & (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)
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. • SbmeirowTalk • 21:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal for article you've edited[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg 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. RM2KX (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Book link at Pawnee, Kansas[edit]

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! RM2KX (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

ohhhh, I didn't notice that it moved. • SbmeirowTalk • 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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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.
RM2KX (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Typos in Kansas[edit]

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. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Aztec, New Mexico[edit]

My apologies for cross-editing while you were working on this, 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, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Cities Project, Canada[edit]

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! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)



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