User talk:WillowW/Archive14

Request II

Happy Holidays, Willow! I see that you're busy fixing all the flaws in the universe (I suspect part of your motivation is a slight giggle every time you type any variation of: "I'm improving the universe" ;) and don't want to distract from this important project. But I wanted to file a request for the future. My friend Hobbesy and your best friend Scartol and I have spent some time fussing over J.D. Salinger. Even the illustrious Awadewit has checked in. Hobbesy is doing all the work, but he's quite busy (he appears to have the unusual ability to control his addiction to Wikipedia, and still focus on real life at times) with college and Holidays until January. We'd love to have one of your exquisite peer reviews on the topic and this is a legitimate request without any pressure since none of us are going to be doing much with the article for a month or more anyways. Yay?! --JayHenry (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi and happy holidays, Jay!

Guilty as charged, I fear. 'Tis a gift to be simple, especially because you can giggle at the same joke over and over and (to the eye-rolling consternation of my sisters) over again. ;) Everyone has their special talent.

I'll be delighted to look over J.D. Salinger, and I promise to be relaxed and unstressed about it; that was a thoughtful Christmas present from you all! :)

Funny story: when I first read The Catcher in the Rye, my mother said, "Oh, I had to read that, too — it had bad words in it." On a whim, I asked her, "Mom, do you remember anything else about it?" She grinned a little sheepishly and said, "Ummm, no." It's a sweet memory of Mom for me. :) Willow (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're off fixing the universe while I'm off playing with unicorns. It does put things in rather harsh perspective :) What are you going to do next? Make world peace happen? Ooph, I must say, the prospects for world peace don't look so good... --JayHenry (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"To see the universe in a rhinoceros..." ;) (with apologies to William Blake and Eugène Ionesco) love actually, Willow (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, you just called me out on making a Love Actually reference. I am horribly ashamed. It was an accident, I swear. I saw it over thanksgiving! Quick Jay, quote something manly "Hamburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast!" Okay, I feel better. --JayHenry (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about ambiguity is that you can say so many things at once. ;) Love Actually is one of my favourite films, and I was all the more delighted that you quoted it! (I've probably seen it eight times now, so I practically know it by heart.) But "love actually" can also mean "I think you're great and what you're doing is just as wonderful and important and beautiful as mine" — if the right people are reading it aright. :) Willow (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I read through J. D. Salinger right now and it reads excellently! :) I touched up a few things, especially in the reference formatting, but there was nothing that leapt out at me for correction — sorry for being so myopic. :(

One thing you all might consider is whether you could breathe more life into the article while keeping it professional and encyclopedic? My memories of Holden Caulfield are rather vivid and it'd be nice if the reader could come away with a more direct feeling of Salinger's style and voice. Perhaps you could include a smattering of quotations from various stages of Salinger's work? Of course I should talk — my own articles are as dry as dust, and I think the reader must feel that they are eating a bag of flour: nutritious possibly, but... :P Hoping that this helps you all, Willow (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think having some more sampling of his writing style would be good, but perhaps hard to find. As for "dealies" (see below), you should watch more Simpsons. From Saddlesore Galactica (Episode BABF09):

Homer: [to the jockeys] Hey, where do you get those metal dealies for his feet?

Jockey 2: You mean, horseshoes?

Homer: Hey, what's with the attitude? I just wanted some dealies.

– Scartol • Tok 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeay, I think I get it! dealie = thingy ;) As in "dealie, dealie's, dealies. n. [dili] Generic entity for which there's no specific name." Back to my reference dealies, Willow (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How odd that you should mention Dili. My next FA will be the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Cosmic order is afoot! – Scartol • Tok 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman review

Hello there, best friend of mine! If you have some time in the coming days, would you be able to have a glance at the all-new, fresh-for-2008 version of Emma Goldman? If so, I'll renew my pledge as your superlative acquaintance. – Scartol • Tok 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Scartol, as always, you brought a wonderfully welcome smile to my face. :) Superlative in what way? Let's see: most silly, most random, most unreliable...in short, Willow the Wisp! ;) As Wodehouse tells us in one of his best books, there's joy in the morning.

I'll be delighted to review Emma; I'm honored that you ask, and after all your previous wonderful biographies, I'm eager to look at this one. :) Unfortunately, I have a lot to do today — aside from untangling a snarl of enzymes — and my hand is hurting, too, so I may have to wait until tomorrow. :( Oh well, all things come to those who bait. ;) Willow (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. My own back is in some pain as well, so perhaps there's a Pain Genie spreading discomfort to Wikipedians.

I shall await your review with bated breath. – Scartol • Tok 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bated breath - very funny and interesting! :) I never realized it was from abated breath. Gothic trivia question: is a knout the same thing as a scorpion, as in "I would whip some with scorpions" (The White Devil by John Webster)? Willow (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they're of the same basic origin, but unless I'm mistaken the knout has one strip at the end, whereas the scorpion has several. – Scartol • Tok 03:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scartol,

I'm really sorry, but I ran out of time to look over Emma; I'm leaving very shortly to visit my family and I still have a ton of things to do. I'll try to get to it when I get back in the New Year, if it's still around. Good luck and happy holidays, Willow (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Scartol, congratulations on getting Emma Goldman passed as a Featured Article!  :)

I've just re-read Emma Goldman and it seems amazingly good! As always, despite the length and depth of the article, you spin a gripping yarn that holds the reader captivated. My one worry — and it's truly trivial — was that a casual reader might mistake the anarchist magazine Mother Earth for more ecological modern publications with similar names, such as Mother Earth News or the Whole Earth Catalog. Do you think that some sort of disambiguation in the lead is warranted? Thank you again for another beautiful article! :) Willow (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alack and alas! My ever-distracted eyes have been bought by other preoccupations, and I all but missed these missives, miss. My attention is surely amiss! I thank you kindly for your praise and comments; I don't feel that such a disambiguation is needed in the lead (especially when the link may lead the uncertain reader to the truth), but perhaps later in the article?

I hope your family visit was pleasant, and I renew my apologies for not reviewing this thread earlier. – Scartol • Tok 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Hi Willow, I coming seeking guidance in reference to Introduction to Evolution. This entry has a long history of growing pains. In part, due to the nature of the topic and the need to compose at an introductory level. During the GA attempt, it was rejected by Awadewit. The rejection was detailed; leaving any false pride I might have had puddled on the floor. My arrogance aside, every criticism was spot on. After addressing every concern, (and a week to rebuild my confidence) I asked if there were other problems of note. The list that followed was even longer. Eventually, she took pity and addressed many of the concerns herself. I never asked her for a third list... which is an import part of this story. In the end it breezed through G/A status. The only concern raised in that evaluation was a lack of plant examples, which has been addressed. Armed with the confidence we boldly applied for FA status. Which leads me here.

Unlike the G/A attempt. The comments seem rather meaningless. Two opposes have made generalized statements that it is poorly written. The rest deal with citations; a concern that is an easy fix; however, our mission statement at the inception of this article was to maintain readability; thus there is a reluctance on my part to cite every word with an incomprehensible journal. That will likely be our down fall. Would you be kind enough to pass judgment on the "prose". I need to know if it is in fact still "not up to snuff" to quote one appraisal or if it is "in bad need of copy/edit" or my favorite .... "I would help, but my English not so good". I'm not asking that you invest time in the critique. A simple comment ... "this sucks" will do. At least I can walk away knowing that it really does suck. In which case, I can quite scurrying around like a rat on a sinking ship; trying to address every concern. I would ask Awadewit; but I hate to involve her; primarily because I know she will feel obligated to invest even more of her time on this project, which would not be fair.

So in summation: Can you give it a quick look to determine if there would have been a "third list". I have confidence in your objective opinion; and for me it least it will end this misery. A brief commentary on general prose will suffice. If you feel it still falls short, then I will take G/A status graciously and throw in the towel on the F/A attempt. [1] This should take you there. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a rather lengthy read for you only to come to this statement. Awadewit must have sensed my stress; ironically she appear out of no where and provided us with THE LIST. I feel a bit guilty; especially sense she clearly did not have the time to spare (or perhaps her conference was boring!); but we did get the critique. My confidence; despite the long list; has gone up; even if we fail at the FA attempt. Nevertheless; if you have time to spare; feel free to add your own concerns; I've seen your work; and would be honored to have your input as well. Happy holidays.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Random Replicator! :)

I'm really glad that Awadewit was able to help you; she's much better qualified to do that than I am. I am rather dismayed to see the trouble you've been having at the FAC, though!

I just read the article, and I don't think the writing is bad at all, certainly nothing to disqualify it from being a Featured Article. It also gives a pretty good overview of evolution, so you all can definitely be proud of all your work.

That said, I think I would have to abstain from supporting it for FA-dom now, since it seems to omit too much material? I know that it's an introductory article, and maybe I'll change my mind once I've brooded over it, but I would've liked to see a sentence or two about epigenetics when talking about heredity; a strong paragraph about evolution being observed at the molecular level, perhaps noting that different classes of proteins may evolve more rapidly than others, even within a single species; a description of how the rate of evolution can be measured; a fuller description of evolutionary "pressures" and strategies such as protective coloring and chemical warfare; more discussion of parasitism and conmensalism; and maybe a historical nod to thinkers before Darwin who had conceived of natural selection.

I'm also concerned that a subset of your readers will be rational skeptics of evolution who will look for any chance to poke holes in it. For them, you might consider clarifying the evidence for evolution and counterarguments to common objections. For example, suppose that such skeptics note your paragraph on convergent evolution and argue that "similarity of appearance does not imply commonality of descent", from which they dismiss your other evidence of anatomical homologies. You should probably try to address such objections before they arise. Of course, some skeptics can never be convinced, but I think most are just doubting Thomases who require more rigorous proofs.

I'll write again soon, once I've thought about it, but hoping that this is helpful for now, Willow (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your knowledge of evolution is extensive. It is indeed a very broad topic. Not surprising in that it serves as a the foundation of most biological processes. Epigenetics is indeed an awesome component to the evolutionary story. PBS did a great documentary recently which I'm sure you have seen (Nova maybe). This particular article was intended to bridge the gap between the full version and simply wikipedia; as such, I think I would be straying from the mandate to expand much more than its present state. If it is opposed on the grounds that it too narrow in focus; I can accept that. Such differences in philosophy are fair and do merit an oppose if you feel that more information is needed. I will be enormously disappointed, however, if it fails because the current information "falls short of FA status". I have worked very hard to address all the specific concerns that have been raised and I'm very comfortable that this process has lead to improvements. I've addressed so many list since its original inception! I am concern that what we do have is poorly addressed, vague or confusing. My biggest fear --- that any statement be incorrect. Should you get a chance to look it over, please address any such observations on the discussion page and I will do my best to address your concerns. Having the article reviewed by top editors such as yourself and Awadewit boost my confidence in the quality of the product. As for FA --- the entire process as it stands and lack of constructive commentary by several that did oppose to date has been a disappointment. I expected it to get blasted with specific concerns such as the ones you raised above. I did not expect people to cast an oppose, then disappear, never to return to see if I was able to address the concerns to their satisfaction. The Dragons commentary was perhaps the most deflating of them all; accusations of inaccuracy followed by some vague retraction. I guess I just like The List! I do feel an obligation as one its creators to push it to be the best it can possible be; if it fails FA this time around, I hope I'm left with enough information that myself or others more talented can have a sense of direction that will allows us to improve it. I will address the need of more breadth with Filll; this is more his vision than my own and I will trust to his instincts on your concerns. I hope I've not been a bother and I agree epigenetics is so very cool! --Random Replicator (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I interject a small point into this discussion? I think this article, while admittedly incomplete in its discussion of evolution, is quite good for its target audience - high school students. This page could even serve as an introduction for an advanced junior high school-student. That is a testament to the ability of the editors to condense lots of material into its essence. Awadewit | talk 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heaven forfend, I didn't mean to suggest that the article isn't fine as it is now! I'm just trying to convey the vision that it might be better with no loss in intelligibility to high-school students, and that easily explained topics of equal importance to those covered now are absent. (A few sentences also seemed unnecessarily vague to me.) Perhaps that vision is just a mirage, and I tremble thinking of the work needed to add those topics and re-harmonize the whole article; but I owe it to you all to tell you honestly what I see, no? Of course I won't oppose the article and we all know that an FAC is no time to make major changes. So we have a little breathing space; I'll brood over it, read it again, and perhaps come up with a list of more specific suggestions, and maybe Tim and my favourite pentomphaloid will do likewise. I think it'd be better, though, if the present authors (including you?) were to implement the suggestions that they favour, since they know the article and its goals so much better. I don't want to stumble in like a blind Triceratops in the china shop. ;) Willow (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Willow, no one could compare you to blind triceratops! Although I am hardly a major contributor (I am more like a major reviewer or something), I would caution the editors from adding too much more information as I feel that readers might be overwhelmed. It is so difficult to imagine that time when one didn't know anything about evolution, but that is what is necessary for imagining the audience for this page. I know that there are many fascinating topics that we would all like to see covered, but I am concerned that the more we cram into the page, the less readers will actually learn. A focused presentation of a few key concepts may actually convey the principles of evolution better. I think we should let the wiki-format work for us. There are many different pages on evolution - those readers who want to continue to explore the topic can easily do so. Those who want just the basic outline are given it in this article. That is how I understood the philosophy behind the article, anyway. However, I would be curious to hear your pedagogical theory (as well as Tim's and OR's). I may just be too cynical. :) Awadewit | talk 07:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MLA

I'm here at the MLA conference. Too bad we Wikipedians don't have a larger presence. I have a feeling we are all hiding here. I hope your vacation is going well. I am tuckered out from listening to academic papers, but that is the price one pays for living the life the mind, eh? :) (By the way, the conference hosts a giant book exhibit with huge displays from every major academic publisher and all of the books are discounted. It's a dangerous, wondrous place. I saw a book on Liebniz that I wanted to get...) Awadewit | talk 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey A! :)

Sorry to be slow about getting back to you, but I couldn't really get to the Internet. My family is rather Luddite, and they understandably take a dim view of people scampering off when there's family to be with. I did have a grand time; my knitted gifts went over very well, and I got to see several far-flung relatives that I had missed. At one point, there were 24 of us under one roof, so I and my sisters were rather busy in the kitchen as you can imagine. We took turns, so I got a little respite, although my nieces kept me rather busy; I really love them. :) They seem to like me, too; at least they tend to come to me for stories and games, and spend a lot of time just staring at me, which I hope is a good sign? I haven't succeeded in teaching my eldest niece how to knit (she's still too young) but I did teach her some sign language, which she was delighted by: "look, Ma, no words!" ;) I also got quite the reputation for swinging my nieces upside-down by their ankles while singing old Victorian tunes, like little human metronomes. ;) I think the adults were happy to have the children off their hands, although it was cringingly awkward when well-meaning parents were reproved by their own children, "you don't it as well as Auntie Willow."

I know what you mean about the temptations of good books! I'm doubly blessed to have a small book budget (so that I can't yield to temptation) and a bevy of friends with whom I can exchange or borrow books. Maybe you could convince the booksellers to give you a free sample copy, seeing as you're a scholar working in that field? It's probably a forlorn hope, I suppose.

Ah, but then they would have to give free copies to everyone at the conference! They do offer deceptively cheap 20% - 50% discounts at the conference. So, I bought a history of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century French children's literature for $50 (that was 50% off!). :( Awadewit | talk 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that I didn't think of that! (eyes roll) Yes, ummm, that would follow. ;) The $50 book sounds nice and not too expensive; somehow I'd thought that research books would have to be more expensive, considering how much work goes into them, how few people will buy them and how long they'll hold their value. They seem like the antithesis of Silhouette Special Editions. ;)

Ah, but $100 is quite expensive and many libraries can't afford the thousands of $100 books published each year (in addition to all of the important journals they have to subscribe to and computers they have to buy, and....) It really is quite depressing. Most academic books are only printed in runs of about 500 to 1000 copies. Shows you how many copies are sold. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the MLA before; from its size, I'm guessing that it must be important in your field? Did you get to present something there? I hope the conference was fun for you regardless! :)

It is important, in its own way. It is the conference at which all of the English and foreign language professors get together and chat about literature. I didn't present a paper (I swore off conferences this year - something about finishing my dissertation) - I just went to hear papers and (ahem) meet people. It is also the conference at which all of the job interviews take place. Many of my friends were interviewing. I will probably be doing that next year. Eek. Awadewit | talk 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The ASECS conference is actually more important for my specific field than MLA, although MLA is more important for the discipline as a whole. It's a complicated non-hierarchy. Awadewit | talk 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of the MLA before? Wow, your family really is rather Luddite! =) ("So long as you're living under our roof, young lady, you'll obey the style guidelines of the Ancient Language Association!") Heh. I wish I could get time away from school to attend an MLA conference. The only conferences we get to go to are training dealies for classroom management. – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when we children were especially naughty or would damage something especially beautiful in the house, my mother would often cry out in ancient Greek, "οι μοι, o ποποι! Ωτοτοτοι ποποι μοι!" Just kidding — she preferred cuneiform. ;D

It's so nice to hear from you again, Scartol! I hope your holidays were fun, too. What did you think of the comments above about J. D. Salinger? But perhaps we should Talk up there; I'm waiting for Awadewit to reply with abated breath, and I wouldn't want her to lack for space. TTFN, Willow (talk) PS. what's a "dealie"?

I'll really try to get that JJ stuff uploaded by this weekend! Willow (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it. It seems like I've been reviewing a lot on Wikipedia lately (which I love to do), but I do want to contribute something, too! Awadewit | talk 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Textile Arts newsletter

Happy New Year! WikiProject Textile Arts is starting 2008 by initiating a project newsletter. The project had 7 new articles at Template:Did you know in December and we hope to see more of you in 2008. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa

Here's to a fruitful and fertile year on Wikipedia! :)

Do you follow politics? I'm a political junkie. I'm sitting here listening to NPR's coverage of the Iowa caucuses. Fascinating stuff. Awadewit | talk 08:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful and red, and my favourite fruit — it's just what my Talk page needed! :)

I do follow politics, although it's rather taxing to my faith in people. :( I used to be active, canvassing and demonstrating for some issues that mattered to me; but I've seen the sausage being made, the awesome penumbral sway of money and power, and the impotence of laws; I've begun to doubt that good will and political effectiveness can be united in one person, at least for more than a few years. :( Still, not all politicians and governments are equal; there's probably an upper limit to how good they can be, but I fear there's no lower limit to how bad they can be. I wish I could smile as I say that, but I suspect we both have seen too many things that cannot be smiled at. Willow (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read a line in Le Père Goriot which speaks to this: "If youth were not ignorant and timid, civilization would be impossible." I dunno about the timid part. Abbie Hoffman said: "We need young people in the front. Young people are impatient and they want things done now." While I don't share Goldman's complete distrust of government, I do share her faith in people to make democratic change happen. (Alas, my man Kucinich never gets a fair hearing.) </unsolicited commentary> – Scartol • Tok 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Like you, Willow, I've seen the sausage. I even saw the "gourmet" sausage in Washington D. C. That experience convinced me that I was more suited for the ivory tower. :) I like teaching people to see through political rhetoric better than I like creating it. Awadewit | talk 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good calling, and I wish you every success. Solomon's Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) begins hevel havalim, hakol hevel ("breath of breaths, everything is breath") which the ancient scholars interpreted as the breath of students: they said the sound of students learning and discussing was the only thing preventing God from destroying the wicked world immediately. So please keep up that life of the mind! :)

My own thinking and feelings about politics are still rather muddled. I don't like to talk about it because it upsets me and also because it creates walls between me and people I would've liked and been friends with otherwise. I've been pretty dismayed by politicians and even some fellow citizens; I imagine a better world, but governments so rarely make any progress towards it. For now, my response is not to wait for anyone but to "just do it": live simply, feed the hungry with a garden, knit warm clothes for the homeless, give blood to the sick, talk to the lonely, that sort of thing. Wikipedia kind of fits into that as well, since I believe it will help struggling students breathe more easily. ;) Willow (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy McAleer

Willow, Thanks for your efforts on Jimmy McAleer. By the way, I was touched by your review; it was nice to know that I succeeded in capturing something of the man rather than simply the "baseball magnate." Below is a small token of my appreciation for your feedback and assistance. -- twelsht (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Life
		This Barnstar of Life is for your assistance on Jimmy McAleer, a sports biography in need of a hug. Cheers, twelsht (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, twelsht! :)

I was a little surprised that you invited me to review it, but I'm very happy that you did; it was a real pleasure. Your writing painted a very human picture of him; so much that I felt like reaching back in time to say, "Wait, don't do that!" Good luck on getting his biography through FAC, and all your other work about the Youngstown area. I have fond memories of the beautiful fall colors painted across its rolling hills, and the wonderfully rich, fertile earth. :) Willow (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Willow, Given your connections to northeastern Ohio, my request turned out to be appropriate in ways I couldn't have imagined at the time. Funny how things work out! Thanks, again, for your assistance--and your lovely review! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Thank you, F! :) I wish you everything good as well, and I hope you didn't mind my little enzymatic "dedications"; they were kindly and sincerely meant. :) Willow (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Your contributions list is, hands down, the most amusing on Wiki :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, F! I thought you would be OK with it, but sometimes I get a little nervous, especially when I take someone's name in vain, even in fun.

I do love the blank canvas of edit summaries, don't you? It's a wonderful place for an sometimes too serious girl to loosen up, tell jokes, give gifts, and set off verbal fireworks without worrying about encyclopedic tone or the Manual of Style. :) Willow (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shell stitch

Hi, I've created the article and put it into the DYK pool yesterday. Would you have time to make a schematic in the next five days?

BTW my next DYK submission will be plainweave. No need for schematics on this one. Feel free to join in the work, though. And I've dropped a note with the military history project to see whether they'd like to collaborate on an FA drive for Bayeux Tapestry. It's a solid B-class right now and they've got some hardworking FA writers over there. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova!

I'll be happy to do make the shell-stitch schematic today. I'm concerned about plainweave, though. There's already an article about the type of weaving, plain weave, which is what I think of when people say "plainweave". Does the embroidery plainweave really warrant its own article, or should it be subsumed under something more general like "embroidery fabrics"? Another thing that leapt out at me was the comment that plainweave is the top-selling type of woven fabric; I'm not sure if that's true, whether "plainweave" is taken to be a surface texture or as a weaving type. For the latter, isn't twill the most common weave, what with all those denim blue jeans running about? ;)

I'd also love to help out with the famous Bayeux Tapestry, but I'm afraid that I'm out of my depth there. Also, I kind of want to get back to some of my own projects, plus finish up those enzymes for Tim. I'm sure you all will have fun, though; I assume you've alerted PKM already? She'd be great at that, I'm guessing. Talk to you soon, Willow (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, thank you. Would you mind if I created a Commons category for shell stitches and moved some of the images there? I think the one tissue box and your two schematics are plenty for the article. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, they're already in categories, but you can certainly add them to others. Gotta run! Willow (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not words but meanings

I've heard tell that Mr. Thoreau once made a good point about friendship; and of course I knew precisely what you meant at the JJFAC. You need never worry that I want appreciation from you! Indeed, I worry that my words showed a lack of acknowledgment. Let us waste neither time nor words afresh on it.

Your animation is lovely, and I'm honored to be asked my opinion. (Please remember that my knowledge of science is limited to: "winter=cold".) I suppose my questions have mostly to do with the use it will serve. Assuming it will accentuate discussions of planetary orbits, I wonder if perhaps the object around which the "planet" is orbiting shouldn't be a star (ie, colored a light yellow or even white)? Or is it meant to be a planet, with an orbiting moon? The textures on the orbs are lovely, but if the intent is to emphasize – for example – that the "moon" always shows the same face, then perhaps a more simple design for that surface would be better? (Maybe a solid color with an arrow facing the center of the orbit?) Also, I wonder if the apogee and other like terms should be labeled – but I admit that I ask mostly because I want to show off that I know what an apogee is. =)

Kudos on your excellent animation, and I hope this isn't totally useless feedback! – Scartol • Tok 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's very helpful, thank you! For now, this is a generic illustration of a Keplerian orbit, although I really like your idea of adding labels and also the Sun off-stage to illustrate the phases of the moon. getting this one right will help me make the next ones, in which I want to add a gradual precession to the orbit to illustrate what happens when you add other planets or other forces, as in general relativity. I'd also like to magick a few other articles from ducklings to swans, such as Newton's theorem of revolving orbits and the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. It's tricky, though; I spent most of Christmas — when I wasn't cooking, knitting or playing with the children — trying to understand how this program works, and I've still only scratched the surface. :P But impatient people are always slow learners. ;)

Did you notice how JJFAC seems like a promising acronym? How about "just jivin', forget about contretemps? ;) Warmly, warmly, and thanks again, Willow (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep me posted; I can't wait to see these as they evolve. As for the acronym, I just now noticed how much it sounds like J. J. Fad. Supersonic! =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Willow, you may feel free to call me whatever you like (except Henry Kissinger). Eric is just fine. (Actually I think it's kind of an annoying-sounding name, but that's just me.) The revised animation looks good, but insofar as you said the orbit itself is supposed to be the focus, you might want to tone down the colors on the rotating star, because they draw the eye pretty sharply. It's good to show its rotation, but making it a less visible set of colors would make it less distracting. I really like the way the planet looks, though – very smooth! Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That suggests something fun! What would be your favourite name if you could choose your own? If you could decide on your seven favourites, then we could call you by a different name for every day of the week. So you could be "Sven" on Monday, "Serge" on Tuesday, "Pepe" on Wednesday, "Armand" on Thursday, and so on. ;) But I know what you mean about not quite liking your own name. "Willow" has lots of good connotations, but still one could imagine a finer name like, oh, Anastasia Hypatia. ;)

Thank you for the aesthetic advice; I'll try it out right away! :) Willow (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think it might be ready! :) Willow (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for trying to mediate over at the Analytical Review FAC. It is much appreciated. Awadewit | talk 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace is difficult work, no? I often find myself trying to balance tranquility with justice. I have to say, the adversarial tenor over there feels like 40-grit sandpaper scratching over my face; but I must believe there's a hallowed ground where we all could collaborate with mutual respect, without anyone simply "conceding defeat". I somehow imagine that we could reach that place, if we were clever enough and could avoid getting trapped into a one-dimensional "you win and I lose" mind-set.

On the one hand, there is surely much that Tony could do to improve the situation, and it were better if he could learn to be more gracious, articulate and diplomatic. But on the other, I think we also might forestall provoking his less helpful impulses. Somehow we need to make him feel (and us feel) that he is one of us; an obstreperous uncle, perhaps, but someone respected who might have something useful to teach us if we overlook his manner. At the moment, we seem to be working against Tony's natural impulses, rather than with them, to everyone's mutual disadvantage. :( I think it would help if we all could turn over a new leaf and stayed focused on the article per se. I know you've been trying to do that, but I have to believe that we could do better and bring the debate to a harmonious close. It may indeed be too late for this debate, but maybe for the next one? Your devoted friend, Willow (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that you asked my opinion.. =) I agree with your goal of peacemaking, but I also think it has to be a two-way street. Pedantry and extreme rigidity do not belong in an open-forum writing project (unless they're couched in hilarious over-the-top self-mockery). And as I said at the FAC, I believe constructive criticism must always be coupled with positive feedback. Neither one alone is sufficient. – Scartol • Tok 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with where you're coming from, and if we were angels in the Silver City, or devas in the Sixth Realm, I would expect no less. But all of us are imperfect, no? In education, impulse and self-evaluation, and I daresay most everything else. Personally, I feel that, if we can, we should try to work together despite our imperfections, and not sacrifice anyone's input. But I believe in universal redemption of Wikipedians, which may be overly optimistic. ;) Willow (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I've failed you, Willow. This exact same thing happened with Tony on a previous FAC, which is why it is so acrimonious now. I feel like I've repeatedly tried to mend my ways here and utterly failed - I just can't read past his tone (I think this is because I spend my life analyzing texts for things like tone - I am highly sensitive to it). Awadewit | talk 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't failed me. The face of all Wikipedia is changed, I think, Awadewit, and I wouldn't alter those footfalls for all the coffee in Zanzibar. :) I'm just sad to see you unhappy and having to exert so much effort, when there might be some elegant alternatives? Friends need to stick together and help each other, ummm, you know, unsnarl tangled situations. ;) I don't know what those elegant alternatives are, and I'm conscious of having been really silly in the past; but I'll gladly be foolish if it might give you a different perspective or method that spares you grief and helps you find that hallowed ground.

Tony's tone is unfortunately all too clear to me as well, although I daresay he may not realize fully how he comes across and he may cringe someday upon re-reading his own words. For example, he may not realize how his tenor smacks of demanding respect and, more offensively, teaching someone a lesson in submission. I'll confess, I associate cranky apodicticity with too much caffeine or some other psychoactive molecule. ;) I also sense an undercurrent of that argument used against Socrates, that he needed to be stopped because he "made the stronger argument seem the weaker" through sophistry and by merely wearing down the opposition, rather than by "honest" argument. Tony doesn't seem to be very good at reading your motivations, does he? Being predisposed to see you as belligerent, he responds in kind, and regrettably confines the conversation to that one-dimensional trap of winning and losing, when the world is so rich in possibilities. Of course, human hearts are labyrinthine, and we shouldn't presume to know what's actually in them; I'll at least plead guilty to not understanding my own! :)

What do you think of just not mentioning Tony at all when talking with him? It seems safest to stick to the text and to his area of expertise/points of contention, although I daresay you might risk praising him for some good insight or clever suggestion. ;) I know you're trying to stick to the text, but I think he might feel more respected and be more mollified if he felt more listened to and was more hopeful that his suggestions might be incorporated somehow. I'm not suggesting that you simply concede or allow a "reverse Socrates", but there might be ways of drawing him out to appreciate his reasoning, as well as alternative formulations that satisfy everyone's most cherished wishes for the article. That approach might spare you both grief and effort and, conceivably, might win you an ally from an adversary.

I'm conscious that some breaches can't be mended. You probably remember, I had something similar happen at the Sweater curse, where I couldn't convince someone of my good will, no matter how hard I tried. :( Still, we must try, I feel the prize is worth the winning; perhaps someday, Tony may become a valued friend, just as Roger is. :) Willow (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I was going to surprise you by entering "Loves of the Triangles" into wikisource. However, it is a very typographically complex text and I am unfamiliar with wikisource (I've only entered one small poem there). In lieu of an entry, I am thus offering a link to a later reprinting on google books that you can peruse at your leisure. At least you will be amused (maybe). :) Perhaps we can work together to enter it when we aren't so busy. Satire of "Loves of the Plants" Awadewit | talk 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a gem. :) Of course I would be delighted to work with you whenever, you know that. Willow (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The poem was amusing, but not quite as much as I'd hoped; oh well! It starts off very well, and the phrase "unhallow'd paw" will make me smile for years to come, I foresee. Unfortunately, the poem doesn't stay close to mathematics, but strays into fairy tales and politics — the pons asinorum was just too tempting for a satirist, I suppose. However that may be, thank you again for hunting it down for me; I was really touched. Willow (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed by the poem, too. Ah well. Sometimes politics trumps math, eh? I will respond to the above later. I feel slightly frazzled right now. I think some piano-playing is in order. Awadewit | talk 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do likewise, turning to Bach when I'm blue — and when I'm happy! :) I was thinking of you at Christmas-time as I played Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, wishing that I could hear you play it.

It's a pity that the mood over there is still so sour. :( I feel depressingly out of touch with reality and I'm really sorry if I misguide you by being too optimistic; it's most likely I who will cringe over what they wrote, not anyone else. Ironically, judging from his user page, Tony may be playing Bach right now as well. It's a strange and perplexing situation. I'm going to take a break by editing some math and knitting, and then maybe Talk to Tony directly. Willow (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Bach. I was just playing it. Preludes and fugues. They are good for the mind and for the fingers. I have utopian moments - I continue to believe in a Star Trek-like future, so perhaps there is hope for Tony and me. :) Awadewit | talk 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the irony of Tony's talk page is overwhelming at the moment. See the request under your plea for peace. Awadewit | talk 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a favourite prelude and fugue from (I presume) Das Wohltemperierte Clavier? They're beautiful pieces and tantalizing close to my level —i.e., just out of reach, but I try anyway. ;) There are so many good ones I'm hard-pressed to name my own favourite; maybe the cheery B flat major?

I don't quite see the irony at Tony's Talk page, but it was excellent timing that DarkFalls stopped by, quoting you as saying something nice about Tony. ;) It seems as though the FAC of Analytical Review is going well, too. I'm done for the day, methinks; I got entangled in virtual knitting but tonight I get to do some for real! :) Willow (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Just a general comment) I think you both worry too much about one editor, and elevate his importance too much by insisting on countering his every move. If I were closing such a discussion, I would see the contrast between, on the one hand, an isolated dispute with little substance to it (perhaps, to be generous to both sides, a "clash of personalities" ;-) ) and, on the other hand, many calm and well-reasoned arguments in support of the article. Raul has surely got used to this by now, and will pass this without problem, so relax! And please re-add the gadfly, either before or after the FAC, as it pleases you. Geometry guy 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• "A clash of personalities"? That was generous of you. Tony and I practically declare war every time we see each other now. I don't know how it all started, but we are not in a good place. It seems neither of us is capable of WP:AGF at this point. I can get along with most people, but we grate. Too bad, too, as we are both interested in improving the writing around here. Ah well. Perhaps, someday we can "boldly go" where no copy editors have gone before. (Someone else re-added "gadfly", by the way.) Awadewit | talk 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I was primarily being generous towards the testosterone-fuelled side. In your case, the good faith is obvious, and requires no assumption. I pretty much agree with the analysis above, but it is (I would hope) an unnecessary analysis from the point of view of this FAC. Good luck in finding a rapprochement, but don't worry if you don't succeed. Geometry guy 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Geometry guy! :) I'm rather the optimist, in that I believe that any snarl of yarn or personalities can be untangled with enough patience and insight, for both ourselves and others. In good novels, happy endings sometimes require time to ripen, no? :) Willow (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I suffered too much from Thomas Hardy novels, in which time just makes things worse. However, in this case, there is nothing to worry about for the time being! I wish it had been me closing the FAC. Congratulations! Geometry guy 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning a more interesting topic: Willow, can you speed up the orbit of the planet? The animation was flashier when it moved faster. :) Awadewit | talk 07:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have it on the best of authorities that it's better as a slow animation. :) I can't seem to change the animation speed except by changing the number of frames, although that may reflect just my inexperience with computer graphics. Having more frames (and a slower animation) is good because it helps to capture more detail, e.g., the spinning and the fast part of the orbit, when planet's close to the sun. Also, I'm a little worried that if it's too flashy, the animation will distract from reading the article. One person on the web wrote, roughly: "In my graphics career, I've learned two important truths: (1) GIF animations can be incredibly cool. (2) The same GIF animations can be incredibly annoying when you're trying to read something next to them." I had a little experience of that myself with that alpha helix animation in the lead of the equipartition theorem. Willow (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Trusting some random guy's opinion is widely recocognised as a weak argument ;) Geometry guy 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. The animations below are really cool, especially the orbital precession.

Peer Review

Hello, I have just completed writing my first wiki entry and would appreciate if you (found you in the peer review/volunteers page) could review it for any obvious issues that should be resolved before it goes into the mainstream wiki content. Thank you. Renewable Research (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopédie

I know you love all things encyclopedia-related! Simmaren and I were wondering if you would like to work on Encyclopédie sometime in the future - you know, like next year? (We're still consumed with aunt Jane and I've just started to work on Mary Shelley with qp. What do you say? I think Wikipedia's article on the first real encyclopedia should be a tad bit better, don't you? Besides, I've always wanted to have an excuse to read more of the Encyclopédie itself. Perhaps we could rope (ahem, encourage) more people in the meantime. There could be a sort of salon over there. :) Awadewit | talk 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be delighted! :) But 2009 would be better for me as well. I'm determined to tie up some of my loose ends this year, especially turning Knitting into a Featured Article. :) And then there's Usher syndrome, X-ray crystallography, Acetabularia, the Universe,...you know how it is, there's no rest for the wicked. ;) Willow (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll plan well into the future then. I'll put it on "long term planning" calendar which includes "find a job". :) Awadewit | talk 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crochet schematics

• 
  Triple?
• 
  Double triple?
• 
  Triple triple?

Hi, apologies for taking a while with this. I've been updating the list of crochet stitches and wanted to double check these three images with you. The first one looks correct to me. Shouldn't the latter two each have an extra cross bar? Durova^Charge! 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That bothered me, too, but that's exactly how the book reproduced it, although there's a difference in the relative length of the 1st and 2nd images, if you reproduce them at the same scale. It might be a mistake; if the cross-bars are supposed to represent yarn-overs, which is how I always understood them, then there should definitely be an extra cross-bar in the 2nd and 3rd images, just as you say. A difference in length wouldn't be obvious in a real-world pattern, where stitches can vary in length, right?

As I mentioned earlier, the symbols are different in my Encyclopedia of Crochet; both the cross-bars and the top bar are perpendicular to the main crochet post, and have the expected number. Those symbols are what I used at shell and fan stitch and they're easier to combine into increases and decreases, since they form little circular arcs? I'd been thinking of re-making all those symbols for you in that way — especially since the Encyclopedia has the most thorough table of symbols I've ever seen — but I'm still scouring my local stores and libraries for other symbol charts for comparison. The "international" symbols vary a lot in the angle of the top bar and the cross-bars; for example, I often see a perpendicular top bar but cross-bars slanted right or left, which maybe mimicks how the yarn lies better? I don't want to have to re-do the symbols more than once, which is why I'm still looking and thinking; but I'll do it however you wish, if you have a preference or some definitive source. :) Ta ta, Willow (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's no deadline. I appreciate the help. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 09:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I hope my email didn't offend you. It wasn't meant to at all. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had a premonition yesterday that I should check my e-mail! :( You sent it just after I checked it last, and I don't check it every day, since I don't always find e-mails that make me happy. Of course I'd be delighted to help you with your mathematical conundrum; I'm really honored that you thought of me. :) It's an intriguing problem and my brain is already beginning to teem with solutions and more questions; I'll send you an e-mail right now asking for more details. Willow (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought perhaps the unseamliness of my offer had shocked and appalled you. :) Awadewit | talk 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad we're online together! It takes more than that to shock me, and I seem to have misplaced my ability to be offended, ummm, maybe in early high school? ;) The e-mail is coming, I just wanted to reply to Durova; I also have a lot to write, so don't be surprised if it takes a few minutes. Best wishes, Willow (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will have to go to bed soon. Perhaps I will treat myself to your email in the morning. I have a piano lesson tomorrow and I need to be wide awake. One cannot play Chopin while tired. Awadewit | talk 09:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Unseemly. Not that you asked. (It's the English teacher in me.) – Scartol • Tok 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know - it was an inside joke. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangit! I thought I caught Awad on a typo. =) One of these days.. – Scartol • Tok 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean, "Darn it!", Scartol? Geometry guy 14:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And so the conversation keeps bobbin' along. ;) What a nice gift of language to find on my Talk page! :) Willow (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

S Club peer review

Hi there! I've just found your name on the list of "peer review volunteers" and your comments are that you like to read any article of which its author(s) are devoted. Well, I'm a huge fan of S Club and have been working for months on getting the article up to a good enough standard. I was wondering if you'd be willing to check it out, and leave any comments you may have. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your hard work is clear to see, and I've begun compiling a list of suggestions for you: nothing major, but a few things that a reader might wonder about. Willow (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks so much for the review. I hope you don't mind, but I've just moved over your comments to the peer review page just so everything is in the one place. It's great to see that you know a bit/a lot about S Club yourself, and I have to say that I was extremely happy to hear of Jo's pregnancy too.. and Hannah is also my favourite!!! - ǀ Mikay ǀ 10:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another peer review offer that you just can't refuse

I can tell that you haven't been asked to do enough peer reviews lately, Willow, so I'm here to offer you another! Woo! My latest FA-bound dealie is Le Père Goriot, which the inestimable Awadewit has been helping me with. Would you care – in between 3D animation sessions – to offer a wee peer review? I'd be ever so grateful! – Scartol • Tok 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already started, but you'll have to give me a little time to think my thoughts more clearly. It's excellent as is, though! Willow (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you kindly, Ms. Willow, for your careful review. I reverted but one of the phrasings – "One of these aspects which most fascinated Balzac was the life of crime." – since it is worded this way (admittedly somewhat oddly) to preserve a transition from the earlier paragraph.

By the time you read this, I will have added the note about Masterpiece Theatre and clarified the class struggle dealie. Many thanks again. – Scartol • Tok 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim Vickers Interview

Thank you for the 'heads up' on Tim Vickers a while ago - we managed to get around to recording an interview today. I'll get it published ASAP since it's been well and truly more than a "weekly" update for the podcast. Best, Witty Lama 10:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Witty Lama! I'm really glad that the two of you hit it off and had a good interview. Tim's experiences and insights seemed well-suited for your program, and something novel for your listeners; I can't wait to hear it come out! :) Willow (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm anxious to hear this interview as well! When is Willow going to get her interview? Awadewit | talk 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WillowW definitely needs to be interviewed! I do have a list of questions I would ask her in an interview since I think she is a fascinating character here (although in fairness to her I would email her the list of questions first and let her throw out any questions she didn't like).--Filll (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Willow. As ever, whenever I think I have started to know you, I'm surprised again by a new level to your kindness. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (ps Loki says - 4555xzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)/

Now I'm surprised; that must be one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me. I wish you could see how I'm glowing, Tim; my kitties will have radiant dreams tonight. ;) Kindness is a magic I delight in and one worth practicing, don't you think? But you should not discount how much of your own goodness is reflected back to you; you repay me better than I think you imagine, just by being who you are. :) Willow (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page

Hi WillowW. I love watching your talk page! It is one of the most active that I have seen and your edit summary comments are delightful to read! « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:29 2008 January 20 (UTC)

Yum! Thank you, D — what an incredible surprise! :) I'm glad that everyone writes to me so much and so nicely, with such wit, affection and vivacity. Even were I the Queen of Sheba, no treasure would be more dear. :) Willow (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Together forever at FLC

If you have a chance, could you look over Timeline of Jane Austen? Simmaren and I are planning on taking it to WP:FLC soon. I know you've been thinking about lists... :) Awadewit | talk 09:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, although my knowledge of her life is not as thorough as it should be. :( But I've been a huge fan of her novels since childhood, as you can probably tell from some of my edit summaries. :)

Thanks so much for your wonderful additions to the timeline. However, each little entry has to be sourced. (Can you believe it?) I have just run through the list of things you added and tried to source them using the system I had developed for the page (see Talk:Timeline of Jane Austen). Some remained and some I had to remove to the talk page for the time being. (A couple I just deleted, because I know they are minor works, like Wollstonecraft's Thoughts on the Education of Daughters). If you could comment on the talk page, I would really appreciate it. When I took Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft through FLC, it was pretty rocky. Reviewers thought I was just making up the timeline myself - basically just saying "This is what I think is important to the life of Wollstonecraft". Of course I wasn't trying to do any such thing! Anyway, I've tried to retain as many of your entries as possible, while still sticking to some sort of defensible system and considering the concerns that were raised last time. See if you think I succeeded. Awadewit | talk 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on Analytical Review! :) I was a little surprised that JJ wasn't promoted first, weren't you? But perhaps it's apt that so modest a person should be passed over at first, only to be discovered in the fullness of time. ;) Willow (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am right there with you. The FAC with the most consensus was left to molder. :) Ah, well. I think Raul and Sandy were busy. Awadewit | talk 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Jane Austen timeline

• The timeline reads excellently, especially the lead section. You might consider adding another paragraph, however, to give the reader a fuller introduction to the cast of characters occurring in column 1. It was rather hard to keep all her brothers and their wives straight, (I'm usually good at that!) and then there's the problem of discerning her father George from her brothers, esp. George and James, who also became a minister (the title "Revd." seems ambiguous?). You might want to prepare the reader in the lead by saying exactly how many siblings she had, and introducing the family members by name, and perhaps some of the more important friends, such as the Leigh-Parrots and the Lefroys. Some people will also want a list of Jane Austen's potential suitors, tied to the year for quick reference. A thumbnail timeline of her dwellings over the years (perhaps with a little map?) in the lead might be helpful (see below); for example, some readers will wonder where Steventon is the first time they see it? :)

• In the 1797 history, you might mention that the mutinies provided the historical backdrop for Billy Budd, which many of your likely readers will be familiar with, I think.

• In the 1794 history, you might do more to show the significance of the suspension of habeas corpus, e.g., that it was first introduced in 1215 with the Magna Carta. The corpus needn't be capitalized.

• It was hard to keep track of where Jane was when she was writing different works? The location of the other characters is not as important, but I think it would be good to keep Jane and her location in stronger focus.

• The dozen-some empty boxes in literature and history still seem unsightly, and withholding helpful contextual information from readers seems inconsistent with an encyclopedia's goals, doesn't it? Still, I should probably draw out those FAC critics (or re-read their words) to help me understand their views better. You should do however seems best for you, although I playfully defy you to produce the scholarly work that says, "The Corn Laws influenced Jane Austen thus". ;) Merry meet, merry part and merry meet again, Willow (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mind if I copy these to Talk:Timeline of Jane Austen, so it is easier for Simmaren and I to work on them together? Awadewit | talk 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not! :) Although I'm about to dash off to make dinner, having done my quota of reviews today; talk to you soon! Willow (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. By the way, I can't help but pause to thank you for your nice and thought-provoking letter! Being a determined pacificist, I can't indeed muster much good faith for that historical personage, although I do try to understand the people determined to think well of him and those associated with him, against the historical data. Misguided I try to think them, more than cruel and indifferent; some sympathy comes from knowing that they and their children will suffer his historical consequences as well, albeit in more minor measure. But I've seen even in myself that kind-hearted people can be cruel and indifferent if they're thoughtless and self-centered; our only hope comes from forgiving and being forgiven. :) Willow (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I find deliberate duplicity on that scale hard to forgive. Perhaps our only hope lies in the categorical imperative. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Catullus 16

Hey Willow,

I wasn't trying to be critical -- call it sloppy drive-by semi-erudition. I actually liked your rendition quite a bit. My post was more of a musing on the difficulties of rendering a precise language into an imprecise one. Particularly where obscenity is concerned. I'd always thought that "fuck you" = pedicabo, but who knows? Maybe it = "go fuck yourself." Consider further the phrase "up yours": Up my what? With what? And are you supposed to put it there, or am I? These questions torment me. Also, I've been thinking: I could see an English speaker issuing threats such as you have artfully translated. Right now I've got a little movie playing in my head of Don Rickles doing just that.

P.S. My friends and I would occassionally go to Cubs games and hold up a "Catullus 16" sign, but it never caught on like John 3:16 and that rainbow wig guy. Ifnkovhg (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ifnkovhg! :)

That's a really funny story! :D Did you hold it up when the opposing team was at bat? Did you do it for all opposing teams, or just the most mortal enemies of the Cubs? I'll confess, I've no idea who their closest rivals are — maybe the Chicago White Sox? It might be useful here, too; we could suggest that warring Wikipedians take turns shouting obscene quotes from Catullus at one another to blow off steam! ;)

Catullus 16 has been fun, but a little bit of a quandry for me. At first, I was so embarrassed that I almost edited under a pseudonym, like BigBurlyHeMan or HeartlessTycoon that no one would connect with me. But that seemed ridiculous and, besides, it's inevitable that the truth would come out, especially after I'd been editing all the other Catullus poems in the same way. Still, I'd be grateful if we edited it together, since I'd be revealing only half as much of my obscenity and inexpertise. ;)

Your note prompted me to re-read some old books on Catullus and ancient erotology, which I inherited from a much-loved old friend. I'll add some preliminary notes to Catullus 16 soon; please let me know what you think! :) Willow (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed hyphen from predicate adjective

Hello Willow: I have no idea what that means but it was done to the Bruno Maddox article in which you edited in "well-known". My understanding of English grammar isn't very sophisticated, but possibly you understand this grammar correction better?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason I bring it up is because I made the same correction in List of scientific writings of Albert Einstein, which is becoming a very useful list.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan

Hello,
You are a volunteered copyeditor listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing. My shortcomings in English most likely makes copyediting both necessary and easy.
Thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

Wow. If what you said is true, you must be dealing with some real jerkfaces! =) Just kidding. I should hope it's unnecessary for me to say that the feeling is mutual, but I just did. I always look forward to seeing how florid and poetic will be your phrasing of even the most routine message.

I did in fact spend the (later part) of the day surrounded by my nearest and dearest, by using my Special Day to force them to join me for what one friend called "the worst move I've paid to see in a theater in many years". (It opened on my bday.) A fascinating look at hypermasculine imperialist American bloodlust pop culture. (The guy next to me was really irritated by how loudly we were laughing during the supposedly tense moments.) I'm simultaneously chagrined and amused by how many people were there for a non-ironic viewing. – Scartol • Tok 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi, I saw your name on the wikipedia:peer review volunteer page. I'm currently working on a science article called the Kardashev Scale, the page has gone through a lot of changes in the last 3 months, some of them reverts that I wish to overturn. I've sent out some notices to people who have worked on the page previously but I'm having problems getting open opinions and feedback. Their ideas about what they want the article to be about and look like are pretty set. I need outside opinion.

In my opinion the Kardashev scale has 3 primary interests:

• 1) A benchmark used by Seti scientists in there search for extraterrestrials
• 2) A catch-all vocabulary term for a scale used by scientists, in classifying advanced civilizations. This has important implications when speculating on sociological structures of advanced civilizations. But also, it is a necessary analysis when talking what about clues might be left behind or generated by alien species; which then might lead the the discovery of extraterrestrials.
• 3) Because it is can be used for the speculation of advanced civilizations it is a magnet for those interested in science fiction. Not many science fiction writers actually talk about the scale or the power generated by fiction species in power(WATTS) terms, but science fiction enthusiasts are interested in the Kardashev Scale.

My primary goals are in advancing the content area of number 2 and diminishing the fictional content. After all, it is a scientific not a fictional topic. My secondary goals are to find and add published content on the extension of the scale. The feedback I have gotten is pretty much divided between goals 1 or 3. And I don't want to create a editing war!

So please read the article and the discussion page and tell me what you think!!

• 1)Is the article presently fine the way it is?
• 2)After you read it, did you get the impression that it was a science article or a science fiction article?
• 3)Was it too long, too short, easy to understand?
• 4)Was the article interesting, was it boring, did it feel jumbled or was it concise?
• 5)What do you think might be needed to be added to this article, what do you think needs to be edited out?

Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes peer review

I noticed that your user name was on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My humble opinion

1)Since planetary motion around our sun is nearly circular, I'd probably change the image to the Sun (a yellow circle) and a rock or comet(something lumpy, preferably with a tail, if you can program the mechanics).

2)I'd probably change the image name to example of orbital mechanics

3)Visually the orbit is much to fast to me, I'd like to have it slowed down so I could see the actual acceleration of the planetary body, right now I think it looks like it has speed 1 and speed 2.

If you really wanted to get fancy the addition of tides, and corresponding Lagrange points would be really cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkygravity (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sparky!

Yes, that was an early first draft; I should just go ahead and delete that. Here's my present favourite, which also comes in a "top-view" version. Once I figure out how to label the images stably with the position r, momentum p, and Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector A, I'm going to upload them to various articles. Thanks for the suggestions of the tides and Lagrange points; they would be cool! :) I also want to animate the Euler three-body problem, but that's proving to be quite difficult for me, not least because I'm easily distracted... ;)

Thanks again for stopping by and I'll get to the Kardashev scale soon, Willow (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the "top-view" version better... I think the tilted one is cooler, but I think the top down is easier to understand, and more educational.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also if you can break down that planetary motion into area vectors you can can add the image to the Kepler area article.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffraction animation

Comments:

1. Make it lighter, it is pretty dark so gives low contrast.
2. The labels on the inner rings need to be larger to be legible, maybe just put these in large text with an arrow for a single frame, but pause that frame for 3-5 seconds?
3. Very cool. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim!

I'll try to do all that, although I haven't learned yet how to create and annihilate things (such as Greek letters) in Blender animations; I can only move things around and change their size. Wish me luck, Willow (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree about the color contrast - the entire thing needs to be brighter. On my computer, the orange doesn't look very orange for some reason.

• The animation does go on for some time, but I think anyone that has gotten that far into x-ray crystallography will watch the whole thing.

• I thought the labels were fine, but whatever.

• I thought it was awesome, by the way. It must have taken hours. I do very staid articles, don't I? :) Awadewit | talk 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that, after all the wonderful, juicy controversy involving Mary Wollstonecraft that we've (well, you've) written about and also been through? It's been rather thrilling for me, even as a bystander. :) It's my own articles that I fear are a mite dusty and mite-dusted. ;) But I'm very glad that you like the animation, and I'll try to spruce it up as you suggest.

Speaking of, ummm, controversy, there's some unhappiness brewing at animal testing, although I haven't read up yet on why that is. I'm sorry for taking your name in vain there, but I hope you'll be flattered that I think you'd make the best and fairest of judges. I wouldn't wish it on you or anyone, but my sense is that the dispute needs a Daniel(la) who's above reproach and who's not afraid to walk into the lion's den. Unfortunately, the dispute seems likely to sap the productivity of everyone involved. Conflicts like that always twist my stomach in knots; surgit amari aliquid... :( Willow (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering me, but for reasons you may guess, I actually have pretty strong feelings on animal testing, which make me a non-ideal candidate for this mediation. I would rather not have to fight against my own bias all of the time. Awadewit | talk 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable; I should've thought of that beforehand. I just took a little break with my kitties to restore my serenity and perspective. :) I also have a helpful lemon verbena bush growing indoors. I rub the leaves and the fragrance just transports me to bliss directly; I can smell it now on my hands as I type. If you don't have one, I can totally recommend it for the stressed grad student writing her dissertation; verveine is one of Mother Nature's best gifts. :) Willow (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)