User talk:Just plain Bill

Hi. Bill here. carry on...

I will answer you here, so please watch this page if you start a new heading.
If I start one on your talk page, I will watch there, to keep the discussion on one page.

Re equator

I admit that I mixed up latitude and longitude (and went blind to the mix-up without giving it a second thought), I'm likely to confuse left and right again even in a pinch, but I never confound "above" versus "along." You're welcome to join the club. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

On further reflection, the sun never moves along the equator. The subsolar point crosses the equator briefly, at a shallow angle, twice a year at the equinoxes. If you think I am confounding "above" and "along" in this case, think again. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You know and I know what you mean. Subsolar point is a new addition to my vocabulary. (Incidentally, you might consider using the term to improve the "The plane of Earth's equator, when projected outwards to the celestial sphere, defines the celestial equator" verbiage. You know and I know what's intended, but - ack!) As far as I'm aware:

• The subsolar point crosses appears to cross the equator briefly, at a shallow angle every day at noon, except at the equinoxes.
  

• The subsolar point appears to follow the equatorial line twice a year at the equinoxes.

My "above" and "along" spiel relates only to the "move(s) directly above" verbiage that you added as a practical (and acceptable albeit technically indefensible) description. Your most recent edit, however, is equivocal since the the pertinent sentence's theme relates to the equinox, when the subsolar point doesn't appear to "cross" the equator at any period of the day. I'll give a bit more thought about your most recent edit before tweaking it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The subsolar point only crosses the equator twice a year. Those two moments define when the equinoxes happen. For a particular year, a nautical almanac might give information about the timing of it. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the definitions, the subsolar point crosses the equator daily at noon, but follows along the equator nearly all day during the equinoxes. See my edit to your edit in response to your removing the "move directly along" wording. FYI, I'm 99% sure my edit is an improvement. If you disagree, please avoid a simple reversion. Instead, I suggest tweaking it appropriately. The relevant paragraph is ordered better now than before even if you quibble with the wording. Regardless, please reformat the cite that I added. I never learned how to do that properly.

And FWIW, I'm unlikely to make further edits in any event. I'm happy with the lede, which currently parallels what's in my own glossary as linked to the article. If anyone changes it AGAIN I'm just gonna trust it'll be better than it was before my hacks at it. I'm only mildly interested in the remainder of the article, which needs TONS more work from anyone who's willing to put in the effort. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind fixing the cite. Old dog just learned itself a new trick. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that edit introduced more gibberish than I am willing to clean up. I will see if re-ordering the paragraph makes sense, but further discussion belongs on the article's talk page. ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edit

About your edit to truth.(Sry I am new) the reason why it is redundant is because

It causes a circular definition. One of the articles needs to omit the other.

I am welcome to you talking about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truda123 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Truth is the place for discussing this. Just plain Bill (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for correcting my Shellac page citation! I haden't realised it was such a website Lauraswikiacount (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

See WP:BADREVERT & WP:PARTR. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That essay is nice, but it is not Wikipedia policy. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

fence

in fence page you said moat isnt fence. but moat is one types of a fence Hakimehsasani (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Alternatives to fencing include a ditch (sometimes filled with water, forming a moat).

The key is "alternatives," meaning a moat or ditch serves a similar function (enclosure) but is not a fence.

Talk:Fence is the place to discuss this further. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Kebab

Just in case you don’t keep an eye I thought I’d draw your attention to the talk there. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Responded on the article's talk page. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

"the"

Bill,

I still disagree with you, but I won't get into an editing war over it. I'll just make my case here and then let it be. I agree that "the post production" doesn't sound right, but that's because "the post production" standing alone is an adjective and needs a noun to follow it, such as "the post production developments." By contrast, "photography" in "principal photography" is a noun and does not need anything to follow it. "He could complete principal photography" is like "He drove car." It requires "the." Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"... just before the production completed shooting" uses "shooting" (a gerund) as a noun. Would you insist that it should be "completed the shooting"? I would not. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "completed shooting" is acceptable, but I don't think that that makes "complete principal photography" acceptable. It just doesn't sound right to me, but I won't defend it beyond that. As I said, I'll let it be. Maybe another editor will chime in. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The likelihood of another editor chiming in will be greater if you use Talk:La Strada for further discussion of this. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks for the advice. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

carpet sweeper

I don't agree with your reverting my edit of carpet sweepers. When I followed the guideline you listed, I found "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.)." I don't like Amazon, but I found it an easy way of verifying the current existence (about as basic as you can get in terms of information) of [non-electric] carpet sweepers. In taking out the reference, you also removed a clarifying phrase, the removal of which you did not explain. (I only came to the article because I have not seen a carpet sweeper in a number of years, yet I would like to have one and wondered if they are still purchasable, and only went to Amazon because Wikipedia statements are supposed to be backed up with citations. As things now stand, there is an unsupported claim followed by an unclearly related sentence about Rumba-like things. If you have a different, preferred source for the current production of carpet sweepers, please stick it in.) Kdammers (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I restored the clarifying phrase about Roombas and such. Carpet sweepers, or hoky sweepers, are still very much available commercially (at least in the US) from vendors such as Grainger or Uline, as well as Amazon. Manufacturers include Bissell, Fuller, and Rubbermaid among the usual suspects. There is a basic unbranded one in my broom closet in more or less daily use, acquired within the last five years or so. I have seen them being used in restaurant dining rooms within a similar time frame. With all that being said, I believe that their present commercial availability needs no more sourcing than "clear skies are generally blue during the day." That's what WP:BLUESKY is about. If further discussion of this is needed, it will get better exposure to other eyes on the article's talk page. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: reverted edit on behavioralism

I don't understand why you removed the link. Can you explain? Edenaviv5 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No idea, don't remember doing it. Best I can figure is fat finger while scrolling. Back the way it was now, sorry. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Made my day w/the Sturm und Drang Irreversible binomial edit, but...

I was going to add Sturm und Drang instead of sturm and drang but couldn't defend 'und' since the article's in English. Frankly, I'm surprised you edited the entry rather than reverting it, which I wouldn't have challenged. The best part: macaronic wasn't in my vocabulary. It is now. On the other hand, gloom and doom rightfully belongs in the article for the reasons stated in the edit summary for my recent revert. Yet and still, I'd back you up if you applied the Google Ngram rationale to tons of other phrases listed in the Conjunction section. Like, 'pickles and ice cream' and 'bargain and sale' etc. have no business in the article. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The place to discuss "doom and gloom" is the article talk page. "Lots of other phrases" is a feeble argument, as you should know. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Applying the Google Ngram rationale to tons of other phrases is a proposition, not an argument. Another proposition: go to

ChatGPT to see how AI answers any questions you might have. It might not offer a reply that accords with your sensibilites, but it definitely will supply a rational basis for further consideration. E.g., ask "What's the difference between 'gloom and doom' and 'doom and gloom'"? (I swear I had no hand in generating its reply.) Or, ask "Is a moat a type of fence?" I'd say yes, given Merriam-Webster's definitions 1 and 2a; ChatGPT disagrees. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in chatbot output, which can be factually unreliable, and emphatically not interested in fact-checking such text. See Hallucination (artificial intelligence): "chatbots often seemed to pointlessly embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within their generated content"

Just plain Bill (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Re helix

My initial interest in the article was to use it as a hyperlinked resource for my own readers. I'd say my most recent edit improves the Wiki article, but I'm not satisfied its lede will ever have a stable version. So, as I've scrapped my intention to link the article in favor of definining my work's one mention of helical apart from any mention of helix, feel free to revert or further edit the article without incurring further interest from me. Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)