User talk:Sbmeirow

webcomic xkcd 285

Menu

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

ARM Cortex-M

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! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 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. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 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! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cortex-M0+ dev board photo. Use it if relevant for the article. FossMCU (talk • contribs) 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 https://answers.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+question/199912 #1 FossMCU (talk)

Barnstar for you

	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!

		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! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback rights

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 Newspapers.com signup

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)

Newspapers.com again

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)

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)

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

Barnstar for work on US City project

		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! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

You've been busy sir!

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)

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)

Windows 9 listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

My apologies (re. EmPower (aircraft power adapter)

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)

Vandalism?

Why is this vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)

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

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

Joy, Kansas

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)

 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)

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

Brenham, Kansas

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)

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

30em

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)

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)

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)

"Further reading" vs. "External links"

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)

Pseudoscience College Rankings

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Data degradation example images deleted.

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)