User talk:Just plain Bill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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)Reply[reply]

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

Your edit[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 (talkcontribs) 04:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)Reply[reply]


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

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


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

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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



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)Reply[reply]

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