User talk:WillowW/Archive10

WillowW
talk page archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010
2011 · 2012 · 2013-14 · 2015-20

Georg made the grade

Hi Willow,

Georg Cantor made FA. :-) I'd like to thank you for your help. Your comments led to the addition of some simplification of cantor's achievements, and the result added tremendously to the article! I'm sorry we couldn't have addressed all of your concerns, but perhaps another day...

I enjoyed working on Cantor precisely because I have no background in mathematics. I learned several new & interesting things. In the future I plan to chip in to a few Arts & Humanities-related articles, maybe a even a feminist bio or two, to keep my mind from falling into the rut of thinking only of Linguistics and Chinese history. So maybe I will run into you again in the future...

Now I need to study for prelims, and hope to stay from Wikipedia 'til September-ish, but I'll be back. Later! Ling.Nut 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Ling.Nut! Your words are really kind and reflect as well on you as your deft handling of Georg Cantor; you did a wonderful job despite having no formal background in mathematics, and I know how hard that is. Good luck with your upcoming exams! :) I'm just sad that we've lost G-guy along the way. He was always such a light to my path here, that my first steps afterwards feel as though I'm walking in twilight. :( Willow 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too sad. Even G-guy himself notes that he will probably be unable to stay away. He is just taking a break, which we all need from time to time.--Filll 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Reason

Willow, if you have time in the next few weeks, could you look over The Age of Reason? I am really struggling with the organization of the page. :( Awadewit | talk 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course I would be happy to. It might take me a few days, though; I've been rather busy at home and with friends visiting. Talk to you soon, Willow 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the organization reads pretty well. :) I like the flow from its history, to its ideas, to its style (less important than the ideas and flows neatly into Michael Moore link), and then to its reception and legacy. I swapped the two sections in the "Historical context" section because I think it improved the flow and helped the reader understand things, but you could swap it back as well. Gotta run off to work, talk to you soon, Willow 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the style section was still a little unorganized. I like your swap. (Thanks for your fast response!) Awadewit | talk 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft

I am slowly assembling articles for a Mary Wollstonecraft "featured topic". This Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft is my latest effort. I was wondering if you would mind glancing over it, when you have the time, and telling me if the layout works? I have changed it several times now, trying to make it easier to read, but I'm not sure that I've achieved maximum legibility. I hope that you are enjoying your friends! Awadewit | talk 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to look it over; I'll try to do it later today.

My friends' visit was really fun, although we didn't do anything special, just hanging out and enjoying good tea and food and each other's company. Time really flies, doesn't it? I sometimes think about Dracula's rhetorical question, "How few days make up a century!" (Ummm, that would be 365.25 times 100, or 36525 plus or minus one day, sir.) If two years can go by in a twinkling, I wonder what twenty twinklings will be like? I suppose we can mark time with slower clocks; trees change color every season, and children grow up. One of my sisters is visiting tomorrow, with her two daughters; my older niece really loves me and might be just old enough now to learn to knit... :) Willow 11:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look! We're on the main page together! Awadewit | talk 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting program

As I know that you are interested in all things wikipedia, I thought you might be interested in this site which rates pages according to their stability. Awadewit | talk 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem with transformers

I see from skimming your page above that you are having difficulty grasping the concepts involved in transformers. I have always found this a reasonably simple conceptual framework, perhaps because I approach it from a different viewpoint. This page should help you a great deal with this fascinating topic. All the best Tim Vickers 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem much more complicated than electrical transformers! :D Thanks for the cheery pick-me-up; you're great! :) Hoping that your two kitties are purring contentedly, Willow 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Britannica

On the Main Page :) Congratulations! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felicitations!!!--Filll 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, omg, omg...! I'm really flattered, but I also wish he'd give me a little forewarning, so that I could schedule my mental breakdowns conveniently. ;) I'm cleaning for my sister's visit this afternoon, and just thought I'd check what was going on, and WOW! I'll check in as often as I can to stem any vandalism. Thanks all! :D Willow 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered your userpage due to the massive contributions you have made to today's featured article, and have to say, your contributions are amazing! Your userpage is quite the read as well! Thankyou for your incredible input. aliasd·U·T 17:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alias! :) You seem really neat, too; now I have a good reason to learn all about Papua New Guinea! Thank you for your contributions as well, Willow 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations on your richly deserved day of glory, Willow! Geometry guy 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, G-guy! It's so good to hear from you. But really you should congratulate yourself as well, since you worked so hard and made the article so much finer! :) Hoping that the Real World is being good to you in turn, Willow 16:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations on a great article! — BillC ^talk 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bill! Your congratulations mean a lot. :) I've been reading up on Transformers and hopefully I'll soon be able to contribute in a meaningful way. Thanks much for being patient with me, Willow 16:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daima

Hi, this article makes no claim for the subject's notability and I can't find anything on Google (searching is difficult because Daima is also the name of a place). Is there anything you can add? Thanks,--Ethicoaestheticist 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just dashed off that article because it was on the Hotlist for Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles. As the article says, she's a European artist with a track-record for shows in various galleries; but then again, I guess that's true for many other artists. I can't add anything else for notability; the algae were easier to write about. ;) Willow 16:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

If you have time in the next week or so, would you mind looking over Mary: A Fiction? It is up for FAC and Tony1 has opposed on prose (what a shock). I'm trying to copy edit it myself, but I may be too close to see the problems. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to look it over, probably tomorrow? Try not to become too impatient over Tony's Picknit Papers; everyone has a gift to give, and a story to tell, and he would be remiss if he kept silent, no? I'm sure that his comments are as helpful as a day is long. ;) Cheerio my deario, Willow 03:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I think that I should have stayed away from FAC for a longer period of time. The one for Mary: A Fiction has only reinforced my negative attitudes towards the whole process. Awadewit | talk 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Did you get a chance to scan that template I wrote to you about? I've started to code it up at {{Stacked timelines}}; any suggestions or even a "cease and desist" would be most welcome. :)

I think that you saw my comments on my talk page? Looks good to me. Awadewit | talk 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Meg Swansen

Meg Swansen, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Meg Swansen satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Swansen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Meg Swansen during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SamBC(talk) 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much to do, so little time

I know that you are very busy right now, but if you have any time in the next week or so, I urge you to review Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. It is up for FAC. It is quite good and merits one of your insightful reviews. Awadewit | talk 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry! We have so much time and so little to do! Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. WW ;)

What an excellent article; I'm really going to enjoy studying this. :) Of course, I'm also mindful that I owe you still a review of Mary: A Fiction. I sometimes get mad at myself for being so incredibly distractable, always reaching for that golden apple on the side of the road... Today I woke up Daisy, who'd been sleeping for five months, so that we can get our taxonomic articles working again. And then there's all that I've learned about the kidney and transformers and...gaahh! No rest for the wicked, indeed. :) Willow 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knitting goddesses

Because of the AfD above, I started to wonder who the superstars are in knitting's pantheon. I notice that our article on Debbie Stoller is pretty weak, considering her purported visibility (is this not really true?). How about Vivian Høxbro? I wonder how many other knitting gurus we still lack, or who have only stubby articles here. Not that I know much about knitting, but these press stories of near riots at knitting stores make me wonder. I went to a sheep and wool festival near me earlier this year, and I was shocked at the incredible lines for people to get various yarns etc. It was almost a frenzy of people frantic to buy some special products. It was mind-blowing. I just went to see the sheep, llamas and alpacas etc and see how they were doing.--Filll 15:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support, Filll! I'm going to see how Meg Swansen and Nicky Epstein go over with my fellow Wikipedians; if they fail, then articles about other knitters would be in vain, anyway. A beautiful, soft, unique yarn can be worth more than its weight in gold, although sometimes we knitters forget that only the recipient's opinion matters, not our own. ;) I'm really fond of alpacas and llama, too; maybe if I do lose my job, I'll find work on a little farm raising them? Working with them can't be much harder than working with horses, and maybe even easier. :) Willow 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have such kind faces, I think.--Filll 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Rfam families

Hi Willow. I hope the summer has been good to you and you are well. I see you are as busy on wikipedia as ever :-) We will be doing a new Rfam release soon (we aim to do one every 6 months) and it has brought us to the issue of how to generate our new Rfam stubs. With each Rfam release we will have new families in the database and we will need to generate Wikipedia stubs for for them. In this release there will only be ~ 35 new families but this will vary from release to release and there should be ~70 or so in the release after this. It would obviously be better for us if we could some how get this automated. Can you possibly tell me how we should go about this or explain a bit how you do it and we can try it and impliment it? We obviously don't want to have to impose on you each time we want to make a release. Thanks, as ever for all your help and we really appreciate you dipping into the Rfam stubs every so often! Jennifer_Rfm 09:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jennifer, it's so nice to hear your voice again! :) I hope that the summer's been good to you as well. It's great to see how the Rfam pages have been developing; the successful collaboration between Rfam and Wikipedia reflects well on both, don't you agree? I've been thinking of simply choosing an RNA family at random and learning everything I could about it but, as you see, I've gotten distracted. It's worse than that; even my distractions have distractions! :p

I'll be glad to make WP stubs for you, or to help you make them, although I think you probably don't need my help. I'm a little wary, though; how am I going to maintain my reputation for weaving magic if I divulge all my spells? Open-source witchcraft is still in its infancy. ;)

As with any magic spell, the best way to generate Rfam stubs is to summon your elements and manipulate them using powerful dark forces. You may have to sift your elements in advance. After the pages have taken shape, you may need to form them further. Once you've crafted each page and its image to your liking, you can upload them by hand to Wikipedia and the Commons (respectively) or you can use magic. It would be wise to adopt a consistent naming convention for the pages, and include plausible abbreviations as Wikipedia redirect pages.

I think you must have many other witches and wizards, all better than me, but I can send you some incantations, if they'd be helpful. Best of luck with your good work and thanks for indulging my Monday morning silliness, Willow 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow, thanks for your engaging reply. Very much appreciated. Yes, we are pleased how the Rfam Wikipedia entries are coming along. A few of the entries have received a good deal of tlc and we have many promises of 'annotations' from the community. I presume like all things they will take a while to filter through which is fine. As far as we are concerned now the infrastructure is in place and the entries can be edited anytime. A great improvement for us.

Regarding making the new stubs I will take a look and see if we can remotely repeat what you have done but I am sure I will need to get back to you for help before long :-) bye for now Jennifer_Rfm 10:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really not trivial for the programmers at Rfam, I'll be glad to help out in any way I can, including sending you my code and my edited flatfile. But as you see, my solution was very "klugy", mixing hand-editing before and after to minimize my effort (busy, busy, busy!), and not easily automated. I think you'd be better off with professional programmers who understand your database instead of my fizzling witchcraft; it'll be much more powerful and you'll be able to do much more wonderful things. A good first test for your programmers would be to make an {{Rfam box}} infobox for a given family (say, RF00003) from the Rfam flatfile or, better yet, from the database itself. It'll probably take them a few hours to do that, and maybe only 20 minutes if they're very good. I expanded the description of the Rfam box so that they can see how it works. After they've done the infobox, they can easily add the main text; getting the references into Wikipedia citation style is a little tricky, but not too bad. Then add the boilerplate external links, stub tag and category and presto! the magic is worked and you're done! :) Good luck and I'm here for you if you need help, friendly Willow 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over my code again, and I discovered that I made the beginning of the {{Rfam box}} from the Rfam family file, the one that has entries such as

RF00001 | 5S_rRNA | Gene; rRNA; | 602 | 12117 | 116.8 | 61 | 5S ribosomal RNA
RF00002 | 5_8S_rRNA | Gene; rRNA; | 63 | 84358 | 153.4 | 78 | 5.8S ribosomal RNA
RF00003 | U1 | Gene; snRNA; splicing; | 100 | 857 | 161.1 | 69 | U1 spliceosomal RNA
RF00004 | U2 | Gene; snRNA; splicing; | 77 | 551 | 177.6 | 62 | U2 spliceosomal RNA
RF00005 | tRNA | Gene; tRNA; | 1088 | 84974 | 72.7 | 44 | tRNA
.
.
.

For example, the first line was used to produce the beginning of the Rfam box

{{Rfam_box|acc=RF00001|description=5S ribosomal RNA|abbreviation=5S_rRNA|
type=Gene; rRNA;|avg_length=116.8|avg_identity=61|

The output filename was set to the name you want the Wikipedia page to be; in my case, I just replaced all the blanks in the "description" name with an underscore, making sure that there are no forward slashes in that filename. The Rfam flatfile was then read to fill in the "ss=" and "se=" fields in the infobox

ss=Published; {{PMID|11283358}}|
se=Szymanski ''et al'', 5S ribosomal database, {{PMID|11752286}}}}

which others nicely filled with citations at 5S ribosomal RNA. The "CC" records from the Rfam flatfile supplied the main text of the Wikipedia article. After collecting the database records ("DR" in the flatfile) and parsing the reference records ("RN", "RM", "RT", "RA", and "RL" in the flatfile), you use something like this to produce the remainder of the article

if (num_references == 1)
  {
    fprintf(output_file, "==Reference==\n\n");
  }
else if (num_references > 1)
  {
    fprintf(output_file, "==References==\n\n");
  }

if (num_references > 0)
  {
    fprintf(output_file, "{{reflist|1}}\n\n");

    for (reference_index=1;
         reference_index<=num_references;
         reference_index++)
      {
        if (Rfam_num_authors[reference_index] > 1)
          {
            fprintf(output_file, 
                    "* %s {{cite journal | last = %s | first = %s | coauthors =%s | year = %s | \
                    title = %s | journal = %s | volume = %s | pages = %s–%s | id = PMID %d}}\n", 
                    Rfam_reference_string[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_first_author_last_name[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_first_author_first_name[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_coauthor_string[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_year[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_title[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_journal[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_volume[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_lower_page[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_upper_page[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_PMID[reference_index]);
          }
	else
          {
            fprintf(output_file, 
                    "* %s {{cite journal | last = %s | first = %s | year = %s | title = %s | \
                    journal = %s | volume = %s | pages = %s–%s | id = PMID %d}}\n", 
                    Rfam_reference_string[reference_index],
                    Rfam_first_author_last_name[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_first_author_first_name[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_year[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_title[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_journal[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_volume[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_lower_page[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_upper_page[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_PMID[reference_index]);
          }
      } /* closes loop over the references */
    fprintf(output_file, "\n");
  }

if (num_databases < 1)
  {
    fprintf(output_file, "==External link==\n\n");
  }
else
  {
    fprintf(output_file, "==External links==\n\n");
  }
fprintf(output_file, "* {{Rfam|id=%s|name=%s}}\n", 
        Rfam_ID_string, Rfam_description);
	      
for (database_index=1;
     database_index<=num_databases;
     database_index++)
   {
     fprintf(output_file, "* %s\n", Rfam_database_reference[database_index]);
   } 

fprintf(output_file, "\n");
fprintf(output_file, "{{molecular-cell-biology-stub}}\n\n");
fprintf(output_file, "[[Category:%s]]\n\n", Rfam_category_type);

See? nothing to it! You might consider replacing the complicated author listing "last=|first=|coauthors=" with the simpler and better "author=", as recommended by User:MarcoTolo in the "Daisy woke up" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals, something like this

            fprintf(output_file, 
                    "* %s {{cite journal | author = %s | year = %s | title = %s | \
                    journal = %s | volume = %s | pages = %s–%s | id = PMID %d}}\n", 
                    Rfam_reference_string[reference_index],
                    Rfam_author_string[reference_index],  
                    Rfam_reference_year[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_title[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_journal[reference_index], 
                    Rfam_reference_volume[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_lower_page[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_upper_page[reference_index],
                    Rfam_reference_PMID[reference_index]);

A not-so-magical but affectionate witch wishing you all the best, Willow 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Copy the code from the "Edit this page" text, otherwise you might miss the – ("& n d a s h ;") between the page numbers in the citation templates. Ta ta ta, Willow 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great!. We will see if we can recreate our flat files in the right format. Huge thanks Willow for all your help Jennifer_Rfm 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Experiment

I just did a quick experiment on your template. But no luck. I'll need to actually read the code, imagine that, before I can get it fixed. Looking at your experimental page I could not tell where the extra white space was (before I messed it up), your experiments looked prety good to me. David D. (Talk) 23:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it so quickly! I think that the problem somehow comes from my implementation, trying to mix parser conditionals and tables; maybe it's unfeasible? Is there an alternative that you can think of? If you can find a solution, I'd be very grateful! :) Willow 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. The optimist in me thinks it should be feasible, but that my change when I try and figure it out. Might be a few days since I'm a bit busy now. is that OK? David D. (Talk) 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for even thinking about it! :) There's no rush on it at all. Another optimist, Willow 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just did this edit, here. Is this the result you wanted? As for the white space i think this edit might have removed some white space. To tell you the truth, i'm not sure i saw a white space error but leaving extra line breaks after a template usually adds space. David D. (Talk) 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now i see your white space issue. Your background colour and the wiki backdrop are 'almost' indistinguishable. So that edit did not fix it.David D. (Talk) 06:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very tricky. I've messed around but put it all back except for this edit here. This seems to solve your white space problem but then something very funky happens in your last example with four timelines. i can't trouble shoot more but maybe this will send you in a good direction? David D. (Talk) 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best; thanks for your help and guidance, David! I've set up some other tests that may help isolate the problem. I'm also going to dissect similar templates to see if they have good solutions to the problem. Maybe I should replace the vertical bar with an exclamation point surrounded by double braces? I'll keep you posted about any progress or insights I get, Willow 11:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow, any progress on this front? David D. (Talk) 19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David! I did make a little progress. Not surprisingly, others have wanted to make encyclopedic timelines for Wikipedia, and several Wikipedians have gone all-out in making fine tools (that I haven't really studied as yet). The simplest to use seems to be {{include timeline}}, although a script-based one, EasyTimeline seems more powerful. I've been meaning to try them both out, but I've been rather busy lately, both here and at home. Hopefully I'll have more to say soon! :) Willow 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I have to scroll L/R to read all of your talk page now. Perhaps it's my smaller screen? Awadewit | talk 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A, just another example of Willow being "helpful". ;) Hopefully it's fixed for you now, but please let me know if it's not. Talk to you otherwhere, Willow 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it's very (or maybe just a little bit) annoying for the thousands of us out here eavesdropping on your talk page. Thanks for all the great work. Far Canal 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly, Mark! You seem like an interesting person, too, with interests ranging from right whales (awful how they got their name, no?) to Lasith Malinga to the Dark Energy Space Telescope! How about spreading your wings and writing a Good Article next? The topic almost doesn't matter, as long as you care about it enough to give it that special grace. :) See you around, too, Willow 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Maddox

Hi Willow: I've seen you many times on Awadewit's talk page and I thought I would ask of you for a copyedit for the Bruno Maddox article. It's currently taking its time through FAC which is fine. It's as comprehensive as possible atm with the few sources available but possibly doesn't have the right tone. Any help you could offer I would much appreciate.-BillDeanCarter 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for thinking of me! I went through the article and tried to tighten the wording throughout, and to give it a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. I hope you don't mind me saying so, but Maddox doesn't seem like the sort of person that we should be making a Featured Article about. Aside from his one novel, which received OK but not amazing critical praise, he doesn't seem to have done anything remarkable. Lots of people have written essays for popular magazines or published a novel with lackluster sales. I kind of feel like we should give him another twenty years to have a remarkable career and then write a Featured Article about him. To me, at least, his parents seem more interesting; I really enjoyed his mom's biography of Rosalind Franklin. But I won't oppose at the FAC, either. Willow 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was an excellent copyedit. It's true that he is at the beginning of his career but I figured a good biography was needed. I see FA more as a stamp that the article is taken as far as it can go rather than a complete retrospective on his life. But as the article is now I'm quite happy with it. You helped give it a more encyclopedic tone. His parents are definitely more accomplished though I haven't read anything by them yet.-BillDeanCarter 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the copyedit. I was wondering if you could comment on a sentence that was in the Bruno Maddox article on august 23rd, prior to your round of copyedits, found in the Early years section. It came after the line about his scathing reviews and went: "Maddox recalls that his "book reviewing style was pretty vicious," and explains that he "was a frustrated, twenty-something guy, sitting in his bedroom venting existential rage on these nasty academics." Another user did a brief copyedit and removed it, which was fine, but I was wondering if you would have similarly removed the above sentence? I find it's insightful but maybe it really doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article?-BillDeanCarter 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill,

I'm not sure that I would use that sentence except as supporting evidence in a section that criticized Maddox for unbalanced reviews, e.g.,

“

Maddox describes himself as an unbalanced and "vicious" book reviewer; rather than reviewing their strengths and weaknesses impartially, Maddox's reviews were almost entirely negative because "I was a frustrated, twenty-something guy, sitting in his bedroom venting existential rage on these nasty academics."

”

The double entendre "unbalanced" captures the idea pretty well, don't you think? :) Otherwise, I think I would avoid the sentence; I personally like to illustrate the character of my biographical subjects, but it's...fraught. ;) Hoping that this is helpful advice, Willow 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline introduction

I am trying to add some historical context to the beginning of the Wollstonecraft timeline, as you suggested. Here is a first (messy) draft. Let me know if this is the sort of thing you were thinking of. (I hope harvesting isn't hurting your back too much - I tore a ligament in mine just by reading, believe it or not.) Awadewit | talk 05:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sounds painful; are you OK? I've never torn a ligament although I occasionally have back troubles due to an injury I sustained a few years ago working as a cook (lifting and twisting, very foolish!) Out of curiosity, what book were you reading?

It happened over a year ago, but it won't heal. :( I don't think it was any one book - it was just sitting in a less than ideal position while reading many books. Awadewit | talk 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvesting is a wonderful time for eating (heirloom tomatoes, yum!), but there's lots to take care of. It's been a reasonably productive year, too, with relatively few losses to disease but more to wildlife.

The timeline draft has lots of excellent elements, and it was really thought-provoking for me; I'd never considered things from some perspectives before. But I think it would be easier for the reader if it were shorter (maybe 2-3 paragraphs?) and a rougher sketch of the tides of history and literature; we should imagine being the reader who's clicked on that page and imagine to ourselves what would they want to know? For me, it'd be also nice to stretch a few decades before her birth and a few after her death as well. Willow 13:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More in less? Ah! I'll keep working. Awadewit | talk 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Look! I'm a Willow in training! Thanks for all of the helpful advice! Awadewit | talk 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mus Musculus-huismuis.jpg

Small as a...;)

But you're the one who worked the beautiful magic, no? I blush too easily as it is, when people praise me overmuch for things I did do — imagine how mouse-like I'll feel if people start praising me overmuch for things I didn't do! :) Your letter exchange with Scartol was like rain on the fields for me; I absorb happiness and harmony from my surroundings, the way some mosses pull water from the very air. Scartol seems pretty neat, too! I look forward to reading more of his articles, since I learned so much about Balzac. :)

If you had any thoughts regarding Balzac, perhaps you could drop them off at the peer review? Scartol doesn't know many editors around here and you know how peer review is these days... Awadewit | talk 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of things you did, thank you so much for your moving letter! I'd like to reply to it slowly, though, since some family descended on me unexpectedly a few days ago, so now I'm triply swamped instead of only doubly. ;) It's very fun, though. My eldest niece is also due back tonight with her mom (my sister), which I'm looking forward to very much. :) It'll be a very full house, but there's sure to lots of good food and good cheer at least! Willow 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I started teaching today, so my schedule will be much busier for the next four months. Awadewit | talk 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Willow touch

If you have any time after the harvest, perhaps you could take a look at Introduction to evolution? I just failed it for GA, unfortunately. It needs an informed stylist. Awadewit | talk 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see what you mean. Unfortunately, I think it's beyond my own powers right now, not because it's bad, but because I would need to read up a lot more with time I don't have. :( I'm rather swamped out there and, in here, I yearn to finish at least one article that I've started already. I'm feeling terribly guilty for not having written up my Citizendium good-will gesture, the Loop of Henle, on time and then there's poor knitting and Nature, which I promised to finish by February, and then all the others my brain is still teeming with: our friend JJ, X-ray crystallography, Introduction to general relativity, Transformer, etc. Unfortunately, when I get stressed, I often move sideways instead of forward, indulgently starting another little project, such as the poetry of Catullus or the genera of the Archaea. Isn't that silly? Sigh. :p Truly, there's no rest for the wicked! ;) But perhaps I'll put a better writer and better evolutionist on the trail! :) Willow 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize! I thought I would ask since I had this vague memory of you working on other evolution articles, but perhaps I am misremembering. TimVickers looks like an excellent choice. The editors at introduction to evolution seem very receptive, so I would not feel guilty about sending anyone over there.

I am desperately trying to curtail my own editing and finish my Wollstonecraft featured topic so that I can focus on my reading and notes for the replacement Jane Austen page Simmaren and I are working on. And then there's that dissertation... Awadewit | talk 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

text lysistrata

Hi willow,

my name is stijn, and i'm an actor/director. I also write my plays. I'm from Belgium, the dutch speaking part. And i'm gonna make my own version of Lysistrata.

you have got a translation of a play by Aristophanes; Lysistrata. (it could be a translation by orscar wilde). What i want to ask: where do i have to be for the royalties? I'm gonna rewrite lysistrata and i'm thinking to use your version. But do i have to pay rayalties or is it a royalty free version, because Oscar Wilde is dead more that 70 years... Can you help me please, mail me stijnvandewiel@hotmail.com;

thanx stijn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.227.111 (talk) 07:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stijn,

It's great that you're interested in bringing one of my favorite plays to life! I sent you a reply a while ago — briefly, I believe that the translation is in the public domain, having been published before 1923 — but please let me know whether you got my letter, when you have a moment. Best of luck! :) Willow 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for keeping my list up-to-date, its very sweet and thoughtful of you. Tim Vickers 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

If you have a moment, could you comment on Thoughts on the Education of Daughters at its FAC? It hasn't drawn a lot of interest, being a conduct book. Awadewit | talk 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pity that people aren't terribly interested in improving their conduct. ;) Of course I'll be happy to review it, to the best of my meager powers. The family has sped on their way, well-fed and happy, so I have a little more time. ;) But I'm taking an adult-education class tonight, so I might not get to it until tomorrow; that's OK, right? Balzac is in the wings, too. Hoping your own class is going well, Willow 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My class went quite well today. A student tried to teach me something about basketball and his struggles to teach little uninformed me helped demonstrate how hard it is to teach. The whole class then tried to help him out, so they started working together. That feeling of "let's work on this problem together" transferred over into the rest of the class - it was great. One of those rare days. Awadewit | talk 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time you need. I am wrapped in many things right now, so there is no urgency. Awadewit | talk 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash metal article

I have unprotected Ankyra, a previously-deleted article about a struggling thrash metal band searching for a reliable bassist. I trust your additions will cite reliable sources about these promising young talents. Tim Vickers 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really funny! :D I couldn't read the deleted material. Thank you very much for the deprotection, the excellent taxonomic reference and, of course, the hiring notice. Back when my hair was short, I played a pretty mean bass. ;) Willow 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot?

Are you using a bot? Beware, using unregistered bots may get you banned. --TheJosh 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm uploading the files using software, but the files were crafted and checked by me. Willow 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Huge Favor: Harold Pinter

Hi Willow (I'm contacting Awadewit as well)...

... so we've been looking at this article for some time now & we would like to have input from other editors... would you mind taking a look at Harold Pinter? It would be a huge favor to NYScholar, LaraLove & me. Thanks!! -- Ling.Nut 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling.Nut, I'll be happy to, although it may be a few days before I can give it enough thought. Thanks for thinking of me, and I'll do my best! :) Willow 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Honoré de Balzac

Hey there.. Awadewit said she was going to/had asked you to have a look at Honoré de Balzac when you had some time. I just wanted to follow up with that and cut out the middleman. I'm trying to get it in shape for FAC, and I think it's pretty close. There's a peer review page here. Thanks in advance. — Scartol · Talk 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scartol, and welcome to my Talk page! I did go through Honoré de Balzac a few days ago, fixing typos here and there and simplifying a sentence or two; maybe you noticed? The article seemed very good, and really brought him to life for me; well done! I didn't notice anything egregiously bad, but I wanted to stew over the article for a few days, to see whether something might suggest itself to improve the article. I'll try to do a more formal review today or tomorrow; thanks for being patient with me! :) Willow 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't see that. Thanks kindly for your copyedits. There's no rush at all, just wanted to check in. Maybe the fact that nothing jumped out at you is a good sign? Cheers.. — Scartol · Talk 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review.. I made some notes at Talk:Honoré de Balzac. One quick question about the Style and Legacy sections – do you think subheads would be appropriate for that? Or should I just do the grouping in paragraph form? Thanks and sorry for the constant pestering.. =) — Scartol · Talk 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fun book

I saw this book in a store window and thought of you. Awadewit | talk 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, isn't it great? It strikes the right tone, and the projects look good and are well-crafted. I was almost dreading looking at it, because it could've been lame, but it was a pleasure. :) Willow 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I thought of you recently, too, when I saw this comic; I hope you don't mind! For the record, I've never been a social scientist, unless you count gossiping in knitting and spinning circles. ;) Willow 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love that cartoon. The cartoonists visited my campus, but I was unable to go. Too bad. Awadewit | talk 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by remark no. 27831

This is a very anonymous comment (I know better!) and not related to any of the work you are doing, so I hope you can forgive me. I want to say that your user page and talk page are intimidating, exhausting, and heartrending — all three in the best imaginable way. Your metabolism seems to use AGF in place of ATP (on behalf of cynical people everywhere, I apologize for all the mail you must get accusing you of being sarcastic or patronizing). When I see pages like this I am proud to be a wiki editor for, although you and I will never exchange a word, I want to spend a piece of my life in a place where the above referenced intelligently loving collaborations are possible. Okay shutting up now. Xeriphas1994 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Xeriphas, thank you! I too love the community of Wikipedia, our little "echo of Eden", where smart, informed and reasonable people can work together to produce something beautiful and useful. :) You shouldn't worry about people misjudging me, though; I've really only ever had one editor who didn't (eventually) think well of me — most of my mail is wonderful, like your letter! :) I'm amazed that you read all my Talk pages; I'm too gushy and long-winded sometimes, so they tend to be rather long. :( Even I forget where things are in there — "Wasn't that conversation in March? ... no, no, further back...how time flies!...wonderful, here it is, in November!" :) Thank you again and happy wishes for your little paradise, Willow 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinter

first of all....we discuss before we revert someone's work that we don't understand. the changes i made to to article were standard formatting linkage and style changes all supported by wp:mos guides. if you'd like specific information, please do ask. cheers.--emerson7 | Talk 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for reverting your edits to Harold Pinter, but how is removing the entire lead (except for one sentence) a "standard change"? Were you intending to replace it with something else? I wasn't really concerned about the substitutions of one ellipse for another, or dashes with hyphens, etc. although I would be grateful for the WP:MoS links for my wiki-edification; thanks! :) Willow 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure the main Pinter editor is still around? There was an indication in one response to me that s/he might not be editing for a while. That would be such a shame after all of that thoughtful work you put in Willow! Awadewit | talk 21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awadewit! It's always such a pleasure to hear from you, and not only because you always say such nice things to me. ;) I'm hoping that NYScholar will be interested in replying; I wouldn't want to go ahead and revise the article without their input.

How's class? The harvest is still keeping me busy; pear jam was yesterday (they were almost too ripe), floods of tomatoes and other vegetables, and now I'm getting my second harvest of raspberries — yum! — just in time for another family visit. :) On the other hand, my sewing machine is being most mischievous and vexing! :( Willow 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this very moment, I am trying to construct counterarguments to Michael Levin's essay arguing that torture is defensible in preparation for my class tomorrow. You sound like you are having a bit more fun. Contemplating torture is never that fun. Awadewit | talk 03:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly! Ugh, ugh, ugh. I'll be interested to hear what counter-arguments you used and what your students thought. One initial counterargument might be that Levin assumes throughout that information obtained under torture is trustworthy, which I believe experience has shown to be false. I keenly remember the medieval witch trials here, and the faux jurisprudence of the Malleus Maleficarum. If the information obtained under torture is not trustworthy, Levin's whole argument collapses; we would've sacrificed the moral high ground for no significant improvement in security. Willow 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "would it really be effective?" argument is a reasonably good one. One problem with it, of course, is: what if someone can prove torture is effective or what if someone invents an effective torture method? Other good arguments: how do you decide who to torture; if we sanction torture against our enemies, they are more likely to do so in return; how do you know you have the right "suspect"; blithely disregarding the rule of law can lead to anarchy. My students gravitated towards the effectiveness argument as well as the unconstitutional claim. Many of them wanted to say "torture is immoral", but as they could not define "immoral", I told them to find something they could better defend. Awadewit | talk 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good arguments; thanks for sharing those with me! Although I'm sure that I'm in the minority, I would also oppose torture even if its information were trustworthy and could save my own life or those of my family. I also believe in forgiving enemies, reconciliation and not counter-attacking; not because of any philosophy or policy arguments, but because that's who I am, which I can't really change. They're anti-Darwinian, I know, which perhaps accounts for such views being so much in the minority; but my genes have managed to survive this long and I'm not alone, so I suspect they might even be sensible in some circumstances. ;) Hopelessly idealistic but not altogether hopeless, Willow 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wollstonecraft featured topic

Your comments would be much appreciated at this discussion regarding the Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, did this go away? I couldn't find it there. As an aside, thanks for alerting me to the possibility of having a featured topic; I didn't know about them! Willow 21:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the topic did go away. Someone else preemptively nominated the topic and I felt it wasn't ready. I wondered if others would support the "hold" I wanted to put on the topic. Apparently that was unnecessary. The nominator withdrew the nomination. (I want to nominate it on my wikibirthday - isn't that silly?) I like the idea of featured topics - I want to do a Thomas Paine topic as well. Note that Joseph Johnson and Analytical Review are part of the expanded Mary Wollstonecraft topic. I plan on working on the rest of those articles over time, but I hope I can nominate the topic with only the works, the timeline, and the bio. See here for an explanation of the remaining work. Awadewit | talk 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon-falling-off-ness

Oh, Willow. I fell off the "become more like Willow wagon". I was trying to grade student papers and edit at the same time. I think that was a poor combination. Something like liquor and beer is supposed to be, I think. See the disastrous results. :( Awadewit | talk 12:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Awadewit, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. :( Honestly, given Mr. P's style of repartée, the same tenor would've likely have prevailed regardless of the speakers or the subject matter. I think you handled yourself with decorum and restraint, and have nothing to reproach yourself for. I might add something there, but the storm seems to have passed.

But, as friends, why would you want to be more like me? Forgive me if I channel Sesame Street, but you are so beautiful in your own right, and blessed with so many good gifts that there's nothing left to wish for, is there? I believe that everyone has their own immanent music, just as every narrative has its own logic, a music yearning to be developed. The harmony of your music is magical to my ears, and I can only wish that you hear it, too. :) Willow 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would like a dollop of Willow to temper my stridency. :) Awadewit | talk 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. "Wagon-falling-off-ness" is a wonderful word! Don't you think it would be an excellent addition to the English language? So useful. But first we should probably translate it into ancient Greek and back again to make it a rigorous technical term, a properly hyphaloutine expression. ;)

Or perhaps Latin. Do you know the Latin for wagon? Awadewit | talk 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the kind of wagon, but I think that carrus would be just right here. So a good Latinate term for "the act of falling off the wagon" might be a carrilapse. (The "i" is a little dubious, but it agrees with "carriage" and sounds better.) An example usage would be, "Oh dear, I had another carrilapse." ;)

The same idea might be termed amaxapopesy or more simply amaxopesy from the Greek words αμαξα (wagon) and πεσειν (to fall). The central "apo" in the longer version conveys the idea of "from", but πεσειν can also mean "to hurl oneself down". ;) An example usage might be "Doctor, I've never seen such an extreme case of amaxopesy." Perhaps we should keep both words, the Latin for one-time lapses, and the Greek for a habitual pattern? Willow 10:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I'm not familiar with the evils of mixing beer and liquor; does it cause a hangover? I've never experienced one myself despite, ummm, lapses in judgment. My metabolism tends to run hot and fast (I overheat easily and prefer cold climates), so perhaps the impurities are burned off before they hurt me? ;)

I can't drink myself, but I've been told you can't mix the two - something bad is supposed to happen. There is some sort of saying "always X before Y or..." I've forgotten it, though, sorry. Awadewit | talk 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS. The family is away once again; back to the real world. :( My niece made serious progress towards knitting! :D

That's wonderful! Perhaps she'll knit you something wonderfully messy but adorable as a "my-first-knitting-attempt"! Awadewit | talk 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in. It's: "Liquor before beer = never fear. Beer before liquor = never sicker." Medically speaking, however, it's unwise to mix them at all. Just FYI. – Scartol · Talk 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plant help

You seem to have eclectic interests (as I do, though not all the same ones). There is a High-priority Plant project stub for the alga genus Acetabularia, also known as "mermaid's wineglass". Since there don't seem to be many algal editors around, would you care to take a stab at researching this genus and expanding its article?

Acetabularia is a bizarre organism, with the largest cells in the plant kingdom. The visible stalk is one very long, slender cell. It has been used in some classic genetics research experiments for that reason, so there is a lot of information published. Care to have a go at it? --EncycloPetey 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Pete, it sounds like fun! You need to know, though, that I'm terrible at over-committing myself, so Acetabularia might get whimsical attention... Willow 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'd rather see possible attention than no attention. I hate to see so many of the WP:PLANTS articles rated High and Top priority just languishing as stubs. One of my long-term goals is to get all of those expanded to at least a "Start" level of quality by the end of the year. --EncycloPetey 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of plants, but I do have access to the full range of USC's research resources, so if you need me to grab some article from Jstor or the like; I would be more than happy to. (this is, of course, assuming that you don't have access to something similar.) Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Cronholm! It would definitely help, I think, since I'm not entirely sure where to begin. Perhaps you could use the USC system to point me towards a good review article? But please don't take time away from your own work; that's much more important!

Did I mention how nice it is to hear from you? :) I've been thinking of you and Orihime surprisingly often, even if I'm lame about writing. I noticed an oblique reference to you in last week's Wikipedia Weekly; did you notice it? Tamsin is really nice, isn't she? I hope her thesis goes well for her; I can't wait to see it! :) Willow 05:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, apparently this is a very popular plant. this and this are the expensive options. Luckily JSTOR offers up several helpful pdfs which I will send posthaste. Similarly a search of relevant authors turns up this thesis ([1] hyperbolic geometry and plants...who knew?) with the mention of Acetabularia just a ctrl+F away.

I did notice the mention! I was quite floored. I felt as if I had been immortalized somehow, if very obliquely (I imagine there are only a select few who figured out that it was me she was referring to.) It was very kind of her and I am sure that her thesis will be delightful reading for the wikipedia community ( and hopefully her professors as well :) ). Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've discovered that Commons has a Category:Acetabularia diagrams, showing some of the genetic and regeneration experiments on this genus. --EncycloPetey 03:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Bill! :) You can be proud of all the work and, I may say, leadership you showed in bringing it to FA status. For myself, I'm glad you introduced me to Mr. Maddox; I enjoyed getting to know him — his world is so far away from my own and therefore intriguing and exotic. I'm curious to see what he'll do next, and I'm willing to venture that he is, too. ;) All the best to you as well, Willow 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm smiling in your general direction, wherever that is

Only Willow could have remained so patient. I will say no more. Awadewit | talk 08:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It droppeth as the gentle rain of heaven upon the place beneath. 'Tis twice-blessed, blessing her that gives and her that receives; 'tis brightiest in the flightiest and becomes the blazoned butterfly better than her wings. — Wait, that doesn't sound quite right... ;)

Caffeine-deprived and silly, but always Aliciously yours, Willow 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping with HdB

WikiThanks

I'd like to thank you for your help in getting Honoré de Balzac up to FA status. Your dedication and support are greatly appreciated. – Scartol · Talk 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Scartol! Good luck on your next article(s) and feel free to write whenever you'd like another pair of eyes. :) Willow 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algae phylogenies

Are you creating algae articles using NCBI database taxonomies? KP Botany 06:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised by the question, since every one of my taxonomy pages clearly references the NCBI database. I'm aware, and have always been aware, of its disclaimer, but I believe the NCBI's taxonomy, with minor corrections, to be adequate for stubs. Following your lead, I'll move the discussion to the WP:PLANTS Talk page. Willow 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It would be a courteous gesture of you to be more specific about your "unbalanced" objections to the X-ray crystallography article. As described on its Talk page, please give us a roadmap of specific objections that we can address. I believe that you'll find the article much improved on chemical and mineralogical topics since you visited it last. Willow 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure that this is what is going on before raising the issue. There is nothing inappropriate about a clarification, and, rather than responding with hostility to me for asking, you might just AGF and answer the question. It is simply a way to start the discussion, by your clarifying and asserting that that is, indeed, what you are doing. The X-ray crystallography article should simply be moved to X-ray crystallography (biological) at this point. The introductory sentence is wrong, by the way. KP Botany 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for contradicting, but I had no hostile intentions and was assumng good faith. I was merely anticipating your questions and trying to answer them at once. As for crystallography, I believe the issue to have been semantic; please see its Talk page. Today is another busy day for me (more canning), so forgive me also if I reply fitfully. Willow 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last Wollstonecraft peer review

May I trespass on your goodwill once again to ask for a peer review of A Vindication of the Rights of Men? It is the last article that I need to bring to FA for my Wollstonecraft featured topic. It's been languishing over at peer review for about a week now, so I thought I would see if you had any time to look at it. I promise that I won't be pestering you so much in the coming months! Awadewit | talk 07:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you know that my good will rolls down like waters, right? Of course, I'll be delighted to look it over, and suggest any improvements that occur to me; MW is dear to me anyway, even if I don't always keep my antennae tuned for the latest developments. But you should keep on pestering me; it's so nice to have a friend in Wikipedia with whom I can Talk regularly and how else would I learn about all these new topics for me, such as Balzac? :) And, of course, I may start pestering you...mwahaha. ;) Willow 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I anxiously await the opportunity to return the favor and learn more myself. :) Awadewit | talk 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey A, do you mind if I wait a day or two to write up a review of A Vindication of the Rights of Men? I'm terribly exhausted from all my work with the harvest and I'm being suddenly gadflied into improving X-ray crystallography, which I've been letting languish for far too long. (If you had any ideas or impression there, I would be very grateful for them, although perhaps it would be best to send them sub rosa initially.) Vindication does read well (as usual!) but you might consider a few finesses for the reader's smoother alimentation. ;) Willow 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time you need! Wikipedia has no deadlines! I will look at x-ray crystallography and email you my lay-person impressions. Reading through it carefully may take me a week or more, though. I made the mistake of assigning my students little papers every week - it will dramatically improve their writing but it is the eighth circle of hell for me. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also mind taking a look at my newly revised introduction to the Wollstonecraft timeline? It is here. Pay no attention to the Rights of Woman behind the curtain. Awadewit | talk 11:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! :) I'm on it, chief! Willow 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm cooking and I keep having to check on things. My first impression is that it gives an excellent introduction to the era! :) I might re-arrange the order of a few sentences or change a wording here or there, but overall it's great at capturing the spirit of the time. What I missed, though, was a closer integration of Wollstonecraft into that era, describing in overview how she and her works were representative of or contributed to the historical tides. A sentence or two about the interpretation of her works over the subsequent decades and centuries might be good, too. Oops, gotta run again, hope this helps, Willow 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I removed the sentences on Wollstonecraft's works to reduce the size of the introduction! I'll try to work some of them back in. Awadewit | talk 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics operational factor

Hi Willow,

some time ago we discussed the question whether to categorize gravitational interaction as a force, and whether that categorization is mostely semantics or something deeper.

Recently I came across a discussion in which it was pointed out that while the Pauli exclusion principle is recognized as hugely important, certainly on equal par with the fundamental forces of nature, the Pauli exclusion principle is not categorized as a force.

Interestingly, when a white dwarf has depleted all its capacity for thermonuclear reaction, it is kept from collapsing to a neutron star by what is referred to as electron degeneracy pressure. Without that electron degeneracy pressure contraction would release a massive amount of gravitational potential energy. Under the circumstances of a white dwarf the Pauli exclusion principle behaves quite like a force; it gives rise to a counteracting pressure. Still, it would be awkward to generally categorize the Pauli exclusion principle as a force. Formulating a corresponding potential energy for the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't seem possible.

It would appear that it is actually necessary to introduce explicitly a more comprehensive category than 'force', and I like to call that category: Physics operative factors. The category of Physics operative factors then contains on one hand phenomena that are not seen as forces: the Pauli exclusion principle, inertia and gravitation, and the forces: strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetic force.

In the past I strongly argued that gravity should be categorized as a force. With the example of the Pauli exclusion principle in mind I have mellowed. I am curious to know whether the comparison with the Pauli exclusion principle resonates with your ideas on this question. --Cleonis | Talk 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleonis,

I'm not an expert in all that, and my confidence to judge such matters is dwindling with every silly mistake that I make. I do understand what you mean, though, although the expression "Physics operative factors" seems as though it would be opaque to experts and non-experts alike. It doesn't really convey an immediate mental image, don't you agree? I also don't imagine that anyone would search for that term, so I would advise you not to make a category with that name.

Certainly there are many perceived "forces" that result from no intrinsic force. Aside from fictitious forces and the electron degeneracy pressure of white dwarf and neutron stars, there's also the entropic resistance to end-to-end stretching of the freely-jointed and wormlike chains in polymer theory, which has been measured experimentally. A similar entropic resistance to overall compaction below the typical radius of gyration can be also observed in polymers and similarly in ideal gases. There are other indirectly caused forces, too, such as the Casimir effect. Still other "forces" are merely the residual of two almost-perfectly-canceling forces.

To my admittedly meagre understanding, whether gravity is an intrinsic force — or merely a residual effect or the stage on which events play out — seems not to have been decided experimentally as yet. It seems generally believed that the gravitational field should be quantized, just as other fundamental interactions are, but how to do that consistently seems obscure as yet. Lacking a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity, it seems most cautious to reserve judgment on whether it is a fundamental interaction ("force") like electromagnetism. But these are only my impressions; you should ask a real scientist for their opinion! :) Willow 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow,

I take it on good faith that the expression 'physics operative factor' will be opaque to others, even though it feels lucid and quite fitting to me. And possibly not coincidentally, I find the expression 'intrinsic force' lacking in meaning - intrinsic as opposed to what? There is something personal here; physics language is full of metaphors, and what metaphor is felt to be appropriate is to an extent a matter of personal taste.

I agree that entropy is another example of a phenomenon that has a physical effect. I was also thinking about entropy and the casimir effect when I wrote about physics operative factors.

Actually, I do not acknowledge the "fictitious forces". I deny the admissibility of the socalled fictious forces. I have to add: I do acknowledge inertia of course. In fact, I am certain that in our physics theories the phenomenon of inertia is prime.

If you can spare the time, can you please write about how you use the label 'intrinsic force'. What does the metaphor 'intrinsic' do for you?

I surmise that you label exclusively the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism as intrinsic forces.

Recapitulating: for the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism there are quantum theories that describe the interaction as mediated by a field that exists in spacetime. That is, in those quantum theories, spacetime is the arena, and the field is an occupant of the arena. Two electrostatically charged particles, interacting, cause acceleration of each other with respect to the arena. So in the case of two charged particles accelerating towards each other, there are two phenomena involved: inertia and the electromagnetic interaction.

I am elaborating on this because I am curious whether inertia plays a role in your considerations (presumably it does), and what role it plays. (As noted above, I endorse the point of view that inertia is prime.)

If you feel uncomfortable, then leave my question as it is. I am writing to you because among the wikipedians I have encountered you are exceptional for your eagerness to learn new things. You've probably amassed more knowledge than I have, but on occasion you have mentioned that you don't have the clarity of overview that you would like to have. --Cleonis | Talk 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleonis!

Thank you for your kind note! :) I do love to learn new things, especially by basking in my friends' enthusiasms. :) I'm also unfortunately prone to pronounce on things without much reflection — l'anima semplicetta che sa nulla rushes in where dread angels fear to tread — so you'll have to take what I say with an enormous grain of salt. But maybe my luck will hold, and I'll actually say something sensible? ;)

I believe that the classical theory of electromagnetism is a limiting case of the quantum field theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in the limit ħ→0, just as Newtonian gravity is a limiting case of general relativity (GR) in the limit c→∞, in both cases with other parameters such as mass being held constant. There might be still other theories for which these theories are themselves limiting cases; for example, QED might be a low-energy theory for a grand unified theory, and GR seems likely to be the classical limit (ħ→0 again) of another quantum field theory. So QED is not perhaps an "intrinsic" force, but merely "more fundamental" than classical electrodynamics, which in turn is more fundamental than, say, a residual or composite interaction such as the attractive interaction between two induced molecular dipoles. I meant "intrinsic" and "residual" in the same sense as Aristotle discerns "primary" and "secondary" (κατα συμβεβηκος).

The role of inertia in my own thoughts? I'll confess I don't think about it much, but I can tell you things I've heard from others. The invariant mass seems an innate property of a particle, like its charge and spin (magnitude), being the same for all exemplars of that type. For example, the intrinsic mass of a photon seems to be zero by experiment, and is presumably the same for all photons at all places and times, which agrees neatly with the present model of it as a U(1) gauge-symmetry boson. Similarly, the mass, charge and spin of every electron seems to be the same at all places and times. The invariant mass of a particle is also associated with its kinetic energy (its energy from moving through space), its rest-mass energy (its energy from moving through time), its local spacetime curvature tensor (maybe this includes the previous two?), the width of its wavefunction for a given kinetic energy, and, and, ummm, I'm running out of memory now. ;)

We should concede that even stranger things might be afoot than physicists have conceived hitherto. Fundamental physics seems to be about hypothesizing objects and consistent rules for their behavior; but perhaps they haven't identified the true objects yet? Perhaps there's some strange thing that acts like quantum fields or spacetime under our circumscribed conditions, but is somehow other when one ventures into more exotic realms. I reminded of Plato's cave and Newton's "great ocean of truth laying all undiscovered". But how to gain clues about those strange new things? It seems likely to require enormous efforts by experimentalists, which may not happen in our lifetimes. Oh well, there's always the next one. ;) Willow 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow,

First my apologies for the sheer length of this posting; I'm no good at brevity.
Secondly a remark about choice of words. I tend to use expressions such as "I endorse the point of view" or "my assessment is" or "I am convinced that" etc etc. That's all a bit cumbersome, and instead I will use the word "believe" in the sense that you used it (as in that you believe that the theory of electromagnetism is a limiting case of the quantum physical description).

Many textbooks describe inertia as an innate property of particles, and I believe that representation is incomplete. To show that I wil use inertial guidance systems as an example.

To simplify to the barest essentials, I locate the thought demonstration in outer space, so far away from celestial bodies that curvature of the spacetime is negligable - this thought demonstration takes place in flat Minkowski spacetime. Two spaceships are initially co-moving. One of the spaceships fires up thrusters and moves away from the other spaceship, that remains in inertial motion. The spaceship that is departing has an extremely accurate inertial guidance system onboard and extremely accurate clocks. At all times, the roaming spaceship knows its position with respect to the inertially moving spaceship. The roaming spaceship can follow a very complicated trajectory, with different accelerations at different times, but it can always plot a course to a rendez-vous with the inertially moving ship. No need to keep radar contact, the inertial guidance system suffices.

There is a similarity between what inertial guidance systems do and dead reckoning. Both in the case of inertial guidance systems and dead reckoning the navigator is relying on a omnipresent reference to guide himself back to some point of departure (or to a particular destination relative to the point of departure.)
Of course, the big difference between inertial guidance systems and dead reckoning is that dead reckoning is about locating a particular point in space whereas inertial guidance systems only sense change of velocity, so all points in the space are indistinguishable to an inertial guidance system. What an inertial guidance system facilitates is returning to some object in space that kept moving inertially all the time. (Alternatively, both spaceships can be roaming for a while, and agree to return to a point where a third spaceship would have been if it would have kept moving inertially all the time. Depending on the involved velocities the spaceship crews may have to take relativistic effects into account. Naturally in this thought experiment all crew members are consummate relativists.)

In the sense described above, Minkowski spacetime is a space that can be navigated, because there is an omnipresent, perfectly uniform reference: inertia. The space that is navigated by inertial guidance systems is called inertial space (I didn't invent the expression 'inertial space'. Try googling "inertial space" with the added google constraint: "site:.edu" Quite a few authors in the field of physics use the expression 'inertial space'.) A interferometric example of usage of inertial space as a reference is ring interferometry. Ring interferometry employs the Sagnac effect to measure rotation with respect to inertial space.

I do not think of inertia as merely an innate property of particles. I think of inertia as an interaction between spacetime and particles. A force is required to change a particle's velocity with respect to spacetime. I regard spacetime as a physical entity, participating in the physics taking place. (None of these ideas are my own invention, I came across these ideas in essays by experts on relativistic physics.)

Some 'what if' philosophy: What if there is a universe in which inertia is infinitely large? In such a universe all objects would be immovable; nothing moves. What if there is a universe in which inertia is zero? In such a universe all particles/objects would instantaneously jump to maximum velocity at the slightest force. Remarkably, our universe is somewhere in between the above two extremes. In our universe, inertia is not zero but finite. Instead of instantaneously jumping to maximum velocity, particles in our universe (at least the ones with an invariant mass) are accelerated by a force and the amount of change of velocity is proportional to the exerted force.

Thought demonstration: two spaceships in inertial space, connected by a cable, (a bit like landrover vehicles connected by the cable that they can winch in.) When one or both of the spaceships starts reeling in the cable, the two spaceships accelerate each other towards their common center of mass. Suppose that one of the spaceships happens to be located in a pocket of spacetime with anomalous properties: in the anomalous pocket of spacetime there is no inertia. Then the spaceship in the anomalous spacetime would be yanked out of it. I believe that this illustrates an essential property of inertia: inertia provides leverage. When two spaceships are connected by a cable, and one or both spaceships reel in the cable, then it is the inertia of each spaceship that gives it the leverage to accelerate the other spaceship. Metaphorically speaking: when a force tugs at an object, then the very fabric of spacetime tugs back. This "tugging back" is inherently responsive; in order for spacetime to "tug back", there must be change of velocity with respect to spacetime first. (Many authors have pointed out the analogy between inertia and inductance. I believe that the inertia/inductance analogy is a very fruitful guide.)

Einstein remarked that his general theory is based on the following assumption "dem Trägheit und Schwerkraft sind wesensgleich". The Minkowski spacetime of special relativity is a perfectly uniform inertial space. According to GTR gravitation is mediated by alteration of the physical properties of inertial space. A celestial body such as the Earth deforms inertial space away from uniformness in such a manner that inertial motion of objects tends to proceed towards the Earth's center of gravity. (And if you prevent motion towards the Earth's center of gravity, then in response inertial space will tug at you.)

I also have a subpage of my personal page in which I present standard special relativity, but using a somewhat non-standard point of entry. The article is illustrated with animations, and among other things I discuss the role of inertia in special relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another annoying request

Sorry to bug you again, madame. But I have a request: At Awadewit's urging, I have created a Template Tutorial. I have no idea what your level of template competence/confidence is, but I'd be honored if you would beta-test it for me. Thanks in advance! – Scartol · Talk 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am a stupid moron, I didn't bother to peruse the many templates on your user page until after I made the above request. I apologize for this foolishness; perhaps you'd still like to have a look. (You can point out all the things I did wrong and/or suggest other things to include in the "Advanced" section.) – Scartol · Talk 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Scartol, you shouldn't worry about offending me; I'm pretty good-natured, especially with people I know as friends. :) I just glanced over your tutorial, and it seems excellent! For more advanced topics, I would include named parameters (e.g., city=Venice), #if: statements and that ilk, and maybe advice on table construction. You might use a WikiProject banner for illustration, such as {{WikiProject Textile Arts}}. Oh, there's that trickiness of how to include vertical bars for the table and yet not interfere with the #if: parsing, which I could definitely use a refresher course on! :) Isn't that why you see {{!}} marks everywhere? Willow 19:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know about {{!}} marks – you should write that section and I'll include it (smile). I did briefly mention named parameters, in the "Parameters" section (I mentioned that they're more work). But I need to learn about #if: statements before I can teach others about them. I'll look into them. ~~(Can you suggest a template whose code I could scavenge?)~~

I know you're good natured; but I always like to be self-deprecating to head off any possible offense. Now that I know not to worry about offending you, however, I'll be using plenty of curse words and foul language when I post here. Thanks again. – Scartol · Talk 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]