User talk:Just plain Bill/Archive 4

Horowitz book

Actually it was self-published - see [1]. So I think my removal was justified. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly, but most of the sources in the deleted revisions of the Solfeggio frequencies article were New Age woo-woo type stuff. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solfeggio_frequencies. There is plenty of "snowflakes respond to ancient Gregorian chant" type malarkey mentioning Horowitz still to be found on the web, but if it's secondary sources of serious scholarship you're after, they could be scarce.

What little I've seen of your editing history reassures me that you are not inclined to whitewash a crank's article, so do what you feel is right. If all mention of this bit of nonsense is to be snipped from the Horowitz article, then that redirect page should be deleted as well. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at it again. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonverbal communication

Hi Bill,

Makes perfect sense. This was my first Wikipedia post, and I wasn't sure how this all worked. I have not had the chance to go through your article in its entirety, nor am I an expert on this. However, I know how critical and difficult non verbal communication can be for many to both comprehend and put into practice. My oldest son (11) is on the mild/moderate Autistic spectrum, and I am going to try to begin creating a type of kid-friendly discussion/curriculum with him to explain many of the things you talk about. He has such a hard time creating friendships because he doesn't understand how the back and forth flow of human interaction works, and it saddens him that he doesn't have many friends..certainly not as many as his younger sister.

If I could, I would probably leave my job in the construction trades (superintendent) and work on something like this full time because I know that a mastery of NVC (non verbal communication) will either make or break his ability to relate to others in his life.

I can either move my comment down or delete it. Let me know.

Thanks,

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam J Read (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No big deal on the top-posting thing, Adam. Most of the old conversations got swept into an archive recently, so this talk page is now short enough that it's easy to see where stuff is.

I'm not sure where to find resources for parents with such kids. I bet they are out there. There might be some support to be found on the r/autism subreddit, but I don't know how good it is. Kindly keep in mind that Talk:Nonverbal communication is for figuring out how to improve the article, not a general discussion forum.

Good luck finding ways to work with your son's strengths, as he finds his way in the world, Just plain Bill (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Viola

Hi Bill. I noticed a certain amount of confusion generally in Wikipedia about terminology re viola, viols, vihuelas, etc. You'll gather from my page enough to figure out how I'm figuring out editing at present - room for improvement, but in general trying to assist in pulling together some loose ends here and there. I used to live in Lisbon, to the average person in the street along with most musicians I met anything guitar shaped (i.e., what you or I might call a guitar) was a 'viola'! Obviously that reference belongs on the disambiguation page - but I'm wondering if some discussion about the viola from the linguistic point of view would help in sorting out the confusion. User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 20:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Candy apples!

Eman235 has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Eman235/talk 21:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

comprised of

Village pump (policy) # "comprised of"

Primaler (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Humanist shape of the violin

Hello Bill,

I was wondering why you removed my violin comparison diagram from the "Violin construction and mechanics" page. I know it was speculation but it was clear from the caption that it was a "possible source of the inspiration of the shape of the violin" and in this regard and as well as the fact it describes the term "humanism" in a visual manner that could not be described in text, I felt it was still suitable for the page. Is there some way to include this image in the article with perhaps a more clear caption that does not mislead readers into thinking this was actually the factual source of the violin shape? We all know we will never be sure where the shape of the violin came from for sure but I wanted to present it as a possible theory and in that regards it is a valid theory that I don't think should be suppressed. We could welcome other theories as well. I thought my original caption was fine: "The possible source of the inspiration of the shape of the violin. Remarkably, the violin form is almost identical to the negative profile of the human ear." Its not stated as a fact but rather as a theory with the intention to have the readers ponder the origin themselves. It is also a remarkable comparison that should be shared with all in regards to the subject of the shape of the violin body. Out of interest to readers I think this is a remarkable connection that describes the concept of humanism in a way no words can describe. Perhaps the image could be included in the wikipedia page on humanism?

What do you think? What should I do next?

Thank you for your comments and your reconsideration Bill.

MichAngelico — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichAngelico (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The coincidental resemblance between the negative space around a human ear viewed from the front, and the C-bout of a violin, will need reliable sourcing if it is to be included in Wikipedia. Many string instruments have a resonant box with two bouts, roughly making an hourglass shape, as seen in the guitar. Such a shape is commonly compared to the human female torso. See, for example, Man Ray's well-known photograph, le Violon d'Ingres. The C-bouts of a violin are a practical feature allowing the player to bow the "outside" strings, the G and E, without interference from the body of the instrument. That's not to say that the C-bouts don't also have decorative and acoustic motivation, but until a reliable source is found saying that they were inspired by the profile of an ear, that is original research, which won't fly on Wikipedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with May Ray's work - his violin comparison is a well-known piece. When I was experimenting with two dimensional images of human head profiles in one of my illustration projects I came across this similarity to the human ear which is even closer to the profile of the violin - the C-bout proportion and location are almost identical to the human ear shape. I thought I would share this similarity as a possible origin of the shape or at least as a way to exemplify the richness of the shape of the violin rather than as a certain fact. By my contribution I was not stating this is definitely the source of the violin shape - instead I was visually describing that when the human mind creates, it often thinks in terms of itself - replication - which is the basis of the ideas of humanism - a central theme in western art. Its a connection - a theory. By definition a theory is "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true". I do see other theories presented on Wikipedia. I was never claiming it as a fact but rather a remarkable coincidence that's noteworthy and relevant to the shape of the violin considering the violin form throughout history has been described as a humanist shape. This diagram clarifies through this one example.

Perhaps the caption needs to be rewritten as:

"Humanist elements abound in the shape of the violin as shown in this comparison of the violin to the negative profile of the human ear."

But Bill, I do see your point too that because its so close it seems as if I am stating that definitely this was the source and maybe people might be mislead if they are not reading carefully. Maybe a new page could be created titled "Violin shape source theories" but we would need a few more other theories to make it a complete article. I am not sure. I appreciate your comments Bill and if this image is never used, thats OK - but you are welcome to use it if you ever think it could be useful in a more appropriate place. Thank you once again!

If the violin cut-outs (C-bouts) formed any other shape it would not be such a coincidence but the fact that is resembles a human ear so closely, which in itself, is the sensor of sound and music itself, makes this coincidence remarkable. Perhaps this is simply an intriguing God-given coincidence that points to the wonders of humanity and creation. MichAngelico (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I do see some resemblance; your observation is an interesting one. Modern violinmakers have mentioned seeing anthropomorphic motifs in various parts of a violin's structure. I remember a forum post from a well-regarded maker in Chicago, mentioning how he liked to shape his bridges so they appeared to be standing up under string tension with a stalwart attitude (I'm paraphrasing, not remembering his exact words) instead of drooping listlessly under the weight. I believe the originators of the violin's shape used straightedge-and-compass geometric construction to lay out their patterns, finding a balance among visually pleasing lines, acoustic utility, and the kind of practical simplicity that helps a workman chop and slice wood into shape for one violin after another.

Coincidence can be a remarkable thing, but so can apophenia and pareidolia. Human minds have come to have sensitive pattern recognition mechanisms. On some occasions that serves us well; other times, not so much. I just held my violin up to the side of my head and looked in a mirror. With some adjustment of the relative positions, I could see a rough parallel, but I had to hold it closer to my collarbone than the top of my shoulder. My old ears resemble neither a Stradivari nor a Guarneri C-bout, nor any other maker's pattern, I regret to say.

It would be interesting to research and write an article on something like "Anthropomorphic shapes in musical instrument design" but finding enough reliably sourced encyclopedic material could take a while. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

here is cat

hope you love the cat

Catz3213432 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

string instrument

You have removed an addition that I made to the String Instrument page, and I would appreciate your advice. The instrument in question is described on the Experimental Musical Instruments page, and I assumed that the links I provided would be adequate reference, without repeating information. Is my addition of inferior importance in your view? I would like to know why it cannot be included. Thank you. ApGlyndwr (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Stroh violin, for example, was produced in great numbers, and new copies may still be bought today. Likewise, the crwth is still made and played by a few dedicated folk. If you can show reliable sources indicating that the neola gained significant acceptance, even in specialist circles, then I would not object to including it in that article.

Searching for the neola on line, I saw many of the top results led back to Wikipedia, which is seldom a good sign. Patent documentation merely shows that some national patent office went through its bureaucratic process without finding a reason to deny the patent. It can be interesting to read through the patent office archives, particularly for inventions related to bowed string instruments, but remarkably few of those inventions were adopted in sufficient numbers to make any other mark on history.

A better place to get exposure for the question will be Talk:String instrument. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Your remarks about the crwth are relevant, as one of the exponents of the neola is Dan Morris, mentioned in the Wikipedia page on the crwth. The neola was performed by him in an LP recording by the Welsh folk group Cilmeri. Also, the Design Council award for the invention was presented by HRH The Prince of Wales. Is this historically significant? Regards, ApGlyndwr (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It may be significant enough to keep on the page of experimental instruments. To be honest, it seems not to have made enough of a splash for inclusion on the string instruments page. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight is one place to look. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to let you know that I made the edit in good faith - to expand the statement about use of different materials. The use of carbon fiber is mainly for bows, and some of these are of excellent quality. Fiberglass, however, is more questionable, and is of inferior quality, especially when used with conventional instrument design. The instrument I cited is an example that shows a development towards future design considerations rather than an adherence to conventional methods, but also retaining the acoustic qualities of traditional instruments. After all, the section of the article under consideration is about acoustics. If you do not wish to recognize my example, then I suggest that the reference to fiberglass as an instrument building material should be removed as well. The neola is not to be confused with the common progression towards electric amplification as covered in the next section of the article.ApGlyndwr (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Once more, a better place to get exposure for the question will be Talk:String instrument. I have no doubt your addition was made in good faith. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Caster

It appears that you have removed the content I added to the ergonomics section. This information is relevant and similar to already published content from Caster Solutions: Causes and Corrections of Caster Flutter Caster Concepts' Solutions Focus on Ergonomic Design Improvements Caster Concepts' Solutions

Please advise.

Thank you.Boubala73 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)boubala73

See WP:ELNO, particularly where it says "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content"

Just plain Bill (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Just plain Bill. I have corrected the content and linked to a non-email required content page that supports the information. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boubala73 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just plain Bill, please pardon me for wading into your talk page, but I have a vested interest in this matter. @Boubala73: You appear to be knowledgeable about the subject and your content contributions are welcome. On the other hand, promotional links like the ones you have been adding to articles are strongly discouraged. For more information about this, please see:

• WP:SPA and WP:REFSPAM, because your edits seem to focus on inserting links to a company you are affiliated with.
• WP:BLOGS applies to the links you inserted because the author is not a recognized expert in the field. If the author really is an expert, there will be other, more reliable sources by the same author that should be cited instead of a blog.

Lambtron (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Lambtron! That pretty much echoes my own thoughts on the matter. The writing style in this recent change to caster, in particular, resembles a promotional blurb, saying "dramatically enhance workplace ergonomics which can positively impact business performance in areas of productivity". That's marketspeak, not encyclopedic style. For now I'm sitting back, waiting to see if other editors have input to offer. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ICWM standards

Caster Concepts is distributing Institute of Casters & Wheels Manufacturers (ICWM) copyrighted content without ICWM's permission, thus my revised link brings you directly to the ICWM website, the owner of the copyrighted material. This is now a legal matter between ICWM and Caster Concepts. Please do not reverse my correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcor-rsimmons (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Have Caster Concepts been told to cease and desist? Is it being litigated? Wikipedia is all about reliable sourcing. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ICWM's legal counsel is currently preparing a cease and desist order.Darcor-rsimmons (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Once I figure out how to do it, I'm going to add the content to the Wikipedia Commons.Darcor-rsimmons (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill, FYI I've started a discussion about this issue at Talk:Caster#ICWM performance standards. Best Regards, Lambtron (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Pension spiking

Thank you for that fix. The claims make a lot more sense now. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to your edit popping up on me watchlist, I noticed that article had been standing in need of maintenance since a long while ago. On it goes... Just plain Bill (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

Thank you for acceptance of my edits :-) 85.193.232.158 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion from another editor's talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PS. here is my discussion with User:Liz, deleted by her, though not effectively. Hmm, how could I? ;-) Of course she can see my post here and do something about it, so here is an exact copy (except the header for obvious reasons): Dunning–Kruger effect and my reverted edits Please could you explain (in the article talk) the reason for your reverts ? 85.193.232.158 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I thought the original wording was clearer. Perhaps a different pending changes reviewer will disagree with my assessment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Please, answer in the article talk page. Let others see your reasoning. Show some class, at least as an administrator. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I am in favor of simple clarity, and avoid sesquipedalian vocabulary as much as possible. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "sesquipedalian" is a good example ;-) 85.193.232.158 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Treble/bass clef

I'd like to argue that the terms "treble" and "bass" belong in the lede for Clef. I agree with you that the term "alto clef" is problematic, but even musicians hardly ever use the terms G- or F-clef, and their use on other than the standard positions is a pretty obscure topic. I encourage you to discuss it on the talk page. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to use your Circle of Fifths in a copyrighted work

Hi Bill, I really like your Circle of Fifths image and would like to use it for an educational poster I am creating. I am going to copyright my poster and want to know if you have any objections to me using your image in the poster. I will use it under "fair use" and give you credit for it at the bottom of the poster. However, it might be useful to have more information about you other than Just plain Bill, although I can use that too if you like. Can I use the image? If you would like to take this conversation to email please write me at joe@idougherty.com. Thanks, Joe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedo3 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The image is available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA whose share-alike provision permits re-use under the same or a similar license. For attribution, I believe a url pointing at File:Circle_of_fifths_deluxe_4.svg is enough. I care more about the image remaining free to use than I do about being identified as its author. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Lovick

My name is Mark Lovick, I created Tribal Branding as a creative marketing strategy in 1984 for CocaCola USA - Long before the internet and any links. I also coined the phrase MarCom and Popularised it. What do You have to do with Global Advertising Input and its History, I ask ? I was also trained by Bryce Courtney and the longest serving AdMan in the World - Samuel L. See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majamic (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

All well and good, Mark, but Wikipedia is not a venue for telling your story. Have a look at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:Identifying reliable sources to see a lot of what Wikipedia is about. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill I would like to draw to your attention that the user @Majamic, who accepts above to be Mark Lovick keeps changing the page brand tribalism to claim that this concept was invented by Mark Lovick. This seems to be a WP:COIEDIT. I am mentioning this here, so that perhaps @Majamic would consider not reverting it back, it is a conflict of interest. MexFin (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Specified complexity

Hello, Bill. 'Inconsistency' is a mathematical term meaning premises or conclusions of a theory may lead to other, contradictory conclusions (Consistency). An 'inconsistent theory' or 'claim' simply means it's not sound - inconsistent with itself, if you will. I suggest looking at the link I provided, if you haven't already, as I believe your objection is explained in it.^Ol^Ja 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Dembski’s claims regarding specified complexity, “false” is unambiguous and accurate. Further discussion of this should go on the article’s talk page, for better exposure to other interested editors. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill: You don't seem to be hearing me. Either way, I have no interest in further discussing this issue, as 1) it is really unimportant (which makes me question why you actually bothered to revert this edit) and 2) you have let me know that you are barely going to listen to what I am saying, anyway. I nevertheless appreciate your suggestion to start a discussion on the talk page.^Ol^Ja 21:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you’re trying to go with this, and disagree. Ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

MOS compliance is not an exemption from the edit warring rules. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have asked the other party to take it to the article talk page. We will see how that goes. Given his history, as mentioned in the current AN/I filing about his behavior, the prospect is not encouraging. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A reply

Dear Colleague Editor,

Given all of the AN/I drama and the resultant dismissals — you're gaming of the system — in order to provoke an edit war, is your business. Disregarding the Administrators' findings of fact bespeaks bad faith and ill-will; do as recommended by the AN/I judgement: move on and cease and desist seeking to provoke a confrontation over opinions, semi-colons, propositions, conjunctions, and weasel words deleted.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not here for wikilawyering or playing games, but to build a useful, readable encyclopedia. ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth Illuminato

Variations of English

Hello, i just got your message, i'm sorry, i'm from England, and speak British English. The fact is, all other variations of English are made by the illuminato to hide the fact the earth is flat, if you dont believe me you are a sheeep, wake up. (this is a joke, i'll stop then) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigginator1 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

No worries; I remember watching blokes (you do still call dudes that, right?) play Elite on Acorns in the mid-eighties. I'm just happy that Inkscape is now running on this linux box, which wasn't the case an hour ago. If we ever run into each other at the restaurant at the end of the universe, your next Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster will be on me. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

admin

Hello, are you an admin?

Pigginator1 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, do you need one? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, i was just wandering

Getting to philosophy

"I'm here to ask you for a little help, Bill. I know you've been editing the page of "Quantity" for a long time, and you agree that the word "property" should not be linked. I know that you know that small change will lead the "lead to philosophy" theory be gone, I don't know the reason why you do it, but I wanna to say, I'm an ordinary person who really loves knowledge just like you, just like all the other wiki editors. Wikipedia is the best resource website that I can learn all kind of knowledge, and when the time I saw the theory that clicking the first link in every page will lead to philosophy, I was delighted, I was delighted by the fact that philosophy is the study of all the essential questions and all the pages of Wikipedia will eventually link to the word philosophy. This is not about any rules or concepts about how to edit Wikipedia anymore, this is about done you want to keep the "fairy tale" of knowledge or do you want to kill it by not linking property. Before I can tell my kids that the Wikipedia they are using has a magic, because everything will eventually link to PHILOSOPHY, but now... now everything will end up the loop of "mathematics" and "element (mathematics), so please, Bill, I'm asking you as a normal person that may you bring the philosophy fairy tale back to Wikipedia, I know you have the ability to end all those unnecessary debates, thanks!

Sincerely,

Lewis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamenLewis (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. One tenet of my personal philosophy is that an encyclopedia is not meant to be a vehicle for propagating a fairy tale. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

History

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take an interest in Wikipedia. It's no more than a slow form of Facebook, with fewer options.

I was in Morocco with the UN, for two and a half years. I learned Arabic in Cairo, intensive language training for a year in 1989, followed by Iraq just in time for the first Gulf War. I almost got shot in Kuwait, entirely because I was stupid. What next? I don't know, but time is too precious to waste on Wikipedia. Honest. PiCo (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Argument from Ignorance

Why do you keep reverting my post? Wizymon (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Explained a few days ago at Talk:Argument from ignorance#Definition. Since then, two other editors have also not considered your change to be an improvement. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Some Advice?

Hi Bill,

I've been a sometimes editor of Wikipedia, mostly concentrating on adding references to, and correcting glitches in articles on music and, particularly, musical instruments. In those wanderings I've encountered your presence a number of times, and we even had some brief exchanges a couple of years back, when I was working on the "Stringed Instrument Tunings" page. You seem to be an intelligent, reasonable guy, with you head properly screwed on, so it has occurred to me to turn to you for some advice for which I'm not quite sure where else to turn.

I can't help noticing that many of the photographs of musical instruments in the Wikipedia Commons have multiple issues. Many are low resolution, grainy, blurry or poorly lit, oddly oriented, lack detail or are otherwise less than ideal representations of the instrument they allegedly depict. Some instruments seem only to be represented in photos of collections of seemingly randomly situated instruments or other objects.

It seems to me that every article about a particular musical instrument ought to include at least one representative photo of a typical example of the instrument, clear, in good resolution, full-frontal -- and then perhaps one or two closer images showing detail unique to that class of instrument. While I can't take on the whole task of doing this, I do have a substantial collection of instruments ranging from the common (guitar) to the more exotic (Hatun charango). Most are fretted stringed instruments, though I have a fair sampling of other categories as well; some are instruments for which there is currently no illustration available in the commons at all. I am also an experienced amateur photographer with good equipment.

What I would like to do is contribute photographs of these instruments to the commons, making them available in the public domain. Problem is, I am uncertain as to how to do this. I'd really like to contribute a bunch of photos at one time, and not have to upload one at a time, if possible. Also, when I contributed a photo of my concert zither some years ago, it was a laborious process of more than 8 months of editing, redoing, reuploading, etc., for it to be accepted by the various commons editors, and I really don't want to go through that process again, if it can be avoided.

So... I come to you for advice. What would be the appropriate, or best way to contribute said photos to Wiki? What is the best means to document that these are indeed my own photos of my own instruments, and that I am freely and permanently giving them over into the public domain?

If you don't personally know the answers to these questions, perhaps you can point me in the direction of someone who does, or several someones who do?

Thanks much, Bill.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I do have some hazy recollection of those days with the fnerff-framophone. Someone once told me that having a musical ear often goes along with being picky about visual things. With that in mind, good images make a worthy contribution.

I haven't had any problem uploading things like File:Bratsche.jpg and releasing them to the public domain as my own work, with simply a say-so. Maybe the wiki copyright cops were taking a break that day. One thing I can imagine getting in the way is if your image can be found hosted somewhere else online, which could prompt questions about ownership, authorship, and all that happy stuff. I don't know of a way to do bulk uploading.

You might find expert help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. The page seems reasonably active... I just added it to my watchlist, for whatever benefit friendly eyes can provide. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! Sorry to take so long getting back here -- life does go on outside Wikipedia . . .

I will try what you suggest and see what comes of it. And if I find a good photo of a Martian fnerff, I'll send you the first copy. :)

74.95.43.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Kebab

Hi, i screwed up at kebab and you reverted me. I just leave you this message here in order to thank you with my own words for your revert of my erroneous edit. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I had my doubts about that edit too, and went looking at the existing source to see what was what. By the time I came back from that, you had reverted. To me it seems somewhat justified to include Iraq in that time frame. For now, I'm content with the way it stands. Cheers! Just plain Bill (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Short description

Thank you for removing the duplicate short description, I've added this to hundreds of pages but a few times it's gone through twice - I don't really know why. I am using the script but it doesn't give any response when the click has registered. Sometimes when editing the description there's a misclick, but I have no idea how it happened here because all I did was import it directly from Wikidata. I will try to figure out why it is doing this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Figured it was something like a lost click; hiccups happen. Thanks for all the work you do here! Just plain Bill (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sketch (drawing)

I would really appreciate it if you didn't revert my work. Like I said, I am going to be still working on it.StrikoWriter1234 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That is what sandboxes are for. Please do not leave that kind of debris sitting around in main article space. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

ize

I've changed the first sentence in the lead from behaviour to behavior on the basis of the talk page notice. I'm sure you'll read my edit summary, but just in case, Oxford says "ize" is used in British English, it's a common fallacy that it isn't.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I had the (probably mistaken) impression that "ize" or "ization" was conventionally used for some words in British English, but not others. The nuances have no doubt escaped me. Thanks for your massive improvements to the wiki! Just plain Bill (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It's confusing. See this. I get lost about the differences because I'm an expat American living in Britain for most of my life, so I'm often not sure what's British English and what's American! Doug Weller talk 16:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you're not stalking me

JPB. To say that X is used in non-goal-directed play is not to deny that there are types of goal-directed play. To define an X according to its paradigmatic or prototypical characteristics does not commit you logically to the denial that members of its class can be atypical, so even if you were to give an example of a thing that everyone considers a toy but that the user uses for a goal, that would not mean that my definition was wrong—it would at best justify amending my definition to "typically used in non-goal-directed play." So, for instance, people sometimes use sex toys to bring themselves to orgasm, the goal for an activity that is not really play, but the activity of masturbation is just one activity for which one can use the toy, so the thing counts as a toy because it can be used freely, without any particular goal. But sex toys are not prototypical toys—when you go to a toy store, you don't expect to find dildos and butt plugs there. That's because the primary sense of "toy" is "an item for the use of young children in free or non-goal-directed play." Hence it would be wrong to invoke sex toys as invalidating my definition—that is the fallacy of converse accident, the use of an atypical member of a class (like a penguin) to invalidate a definition that is true of the overwhelming majority of its class (birds fly).

I was quite sincere when I said that I enjoyed discussing the meaning of "within" and "in" with you, but I was also sincere in saying that I suspected that you had some sort of investment in "within a given context' that made you unwilling to accept my arguments. If you want to pride yourself on that "within a given context," fine with me. I don't really care whether you revert my revert of your revert—if you want to pat yourself on the back for having given what you think is a good reason for your revert, pat away. But since WP is so large, I find it a strange that, in the space of a couple of weeks, you should cross my path again. I can't rule a coincidence out, but since in your last response to me your allusions to the OED above your fireplace and your ten-dollar words made me think I had wounded your ego, I can also imagine that you want a chance to salve your wounds, and you can't do that unless you can find a criticism of one of my chances that I can't answer.

And I imagine this because, after all, the point of editing is to improve an article, and you did nothing to try to improve the definition of "toy"—after all, if you're as smart as you think you are, then you would surely have seen that the definition of "toy" I found was indeed too broad, and that I tried, in good faith, to narrow it; but since after your revert you didn't try to improve the definition, I can only think that your intention was not to improve, just to revert for the sake of reverting because it was me you were reverting.

But maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I won't find you've reverted me again any time soon. If it does happen, I will report you. If I am, then don't revert me again, but improve the definition. If you can't, but still think my improvement is somehow off, then start a discussion on the talk page. Act in a way that is unmistakably in good faith. Wordwright (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"an item designed for manipulation in non-goal directed play" is overly restrictive. The previous "an item that is used in play" is simpler and more direct, needing no further improvement. Leaving sex toys out of it, marbles and frisbees are common examples of toys often used for goal-oriented play.

Speculation about my motives is a waste of your effort, not worth a response. I do find it odd that someone styling themself a "wordwright" would mock another WP editor's diction. My choice of words is motivated by what works in context better than other possibilities I may have considered. In the context of talk page discussion, addressing the content rather than the contributor is the preferred approach here, as a matter of policy. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You are harassing me, and I would like you to stop

Today you reverted an edit I did in the article "War," section "Theories of Motivation," in which I placed the word "theories" after adjectives and attributive noun phrases. This is the state in which it was after my original improvement, and the state in which you found it:

7 Theories of motivation

   7.1 Psychoanalytic theories
   7.2 Evolutionary theories
   7.3 Economic theories
   7.4 Marxist theories
   7.5 Demographic theories
   7.6 Rationalist theories
   7.7 Political science theories

This is the state in which you left it:

7 Theories of motivation

   7.1 Psychoanalytic
   7.2 Evolutionary
   7.3 Economic
   7.4 Marxist
   7.5 Demographic
   7.6 Rationalist
   7.7 Political science

This is not an improvement. As I stated in the description box to justify the change, adjectives and attributive nouns cannot stand alone in English. You reverted my edit without explanation.

A day or so ago you reverted an edit of mine in the article "Toy." I reverted your revert and came to your talk page to reason with you once more to justify my edit. I also observed that, although it might have been a coincidence, I thought that you might be stalking me. You reverted my reversion. Since I wanted to avoid any conflict with you, I moved on. But today you reverted an edit of mine in the article "War." It cannot be a coincidence that you found this article, so I will conclude that you are stalking me, and that your reverts are your way of harassing me.

I ask you to stop. I have no beef with you. If you revert another of my edits, I will report your harassment and hounding of me. Wordwright (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider your framing of normal, unremarkable wiki editing as "harassment." I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, and where I see edits that introduce errors, or bad writing, I revert.

I see you've started a topic on the appropriate talk page. I will wait a while before responding, to see if others have anything to say about it. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)