User talk:BillHart93

Welcome to Wikipedia!
 - Welcome-

Hi Bill!
Hi Bill! Glad to hear that there is another Bill working on early Iowa stuff. I like what you have done so far. Bill Whittaker (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll probably run out of improvements to make very quickly since I'm only read up on a few aspects of Iowa history.


 * I saw your presentation on Forts at Wickiup Hill. Nice book.


 * I'm still not sure how this Talk feature works. I guess you get a notification on your watchlist that I've answered?  BillHart93 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wanted me to see it, you typically would put a response on my talk page. Since you are new, I know enough to check your page, I will look here. Have you ever collected artifacts from Iowaville? I'm not encouraging you to do so, but we are interested to see collections of people who have collected there; a co-worker is doing a research project on Iowaville. You can e-mail me if you don't want to talk on WP: william-whittaker@uiowa.edu Thanks,Bill Whittaker (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at High-leg delta. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

NAD83 adopted when?
Thanks for your recent comments at Talk:Meades Ranch, Kansas. Your userpage indicates that you're interested in the history of surveying, so perhaps you can shed some light on an issue with the article. In the lead, I've stated that Meades Ranch was used as the horizontal datum until 1989 (which a source states is the year in which the US government officially adopted NAD83). Is this correct, or was NAD83 generally used before that, and its 1989 adoption just a confirmation of what everyone was doing anyway?

Thanks in advance for looking at this— Ammodramus (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of article name at Meades Ranch
I've just launched a discussion at Talk:Meades Ranch (Kansas) concerning the article's title. If you'd care to weigh in on it, your opinion would be valued—the more so since you actually know something about surveying. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert of the mathematical formula in Degree of curvature
The formula I added in Degree of curvature is more accurate as the arc length in the formula should be varaiale. Each firm and industry related to construction can used that universal formula. arc lenght is not 100ft in every firm and country as it is 30m in Indian railways. Also every country doesn't use same set of units. Therefore universal formula is much more preferable. So please undo your revert.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also you can add the legend table for the formula. Here 'A' means arc length, 'R' means radius of curvature and 'D' means degree of curvature.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake I have forgotten the $$\pi$$.Thanks for the correction.Prymshbmg (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Degree of curvature
Hello Bill, Please look at Talk:Degree of curvature. Methinks someone is rather rigid and inflexible, like "my mind id made up, don't confuse me with facts". You have cobtributed to that article longer than the other fellow. Peter Horn User talk 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ...is made up...(typo) Peter Horn User talk 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to point out to you is that I attempted to show the other user that there is another way to calculate the radius by simply using the law of sines, using the same (not "some", a typo?) constants. By the way, strictly speaking, only the 100 ft chord is a constant. "Another way", in this context, is only synonymous with an "alternative way" or a "second way" and thus in no way implies that the original formula is either invalid or is in need of a revision. Having said that, me thinks that using the law of sines is more direct and more elegant. Using the law of sines eliminates the need of having to divide the chord by two. The other user appears not to have a full grasp of the nuances of the English language or he does not want to loose face, pride. His user profile inclines me to, well, believe both. His final reply to me is tantamount to a put down. Peter Horn User talk 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the chord, the constant, could be 20 m or any chosen value. In any case the angle included in the radii is a variable. Peter Horn User talk 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert at Mason-Dixon line
You recently reverted one of my edits to Mason-Dixon line, restoring mention of a song in the article's "Popular culture" section. Unfortunately, you didn't provide any sources or discussion in Talk but instead only used an edit summary of "It's relevant." Can you please add some sources to the article that establish that relevance e.g., how the song reflects a common understanding of the Mason-Dixon line, the song's influence on the usage of the Mason-Dixon line in popular culture. Without such a source, it appears to be just the idea of a Wikipedia editor instead of documentation of well-sourced information. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)