User talk:WillowW/Archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wiki Study 2 spherical multipole moments 3 Sherwood FAC 4 The Age of Reason 5 Newton's theorem of revolving orbits 6 Erasmus Darwin 7 Tinkering with "Introduction to general relativity"? 8 Transformer 9 Images 10 Boink! 11 Hi Willow! 12 Georg 13 Transformer 14 Loop 15 thanks! 16 LEAD type question 17 Cantor: does this help? 18 G-guy leaving the encyclopedia... 19 Help -- from someone with physics, with German, and with wisdom 20 More transformers 21 Bad wiki day

[edit] Wiki Study

Hello Willow! My email and internet connection is playing up and I sent you an email confirming you received my latest emailed questions.... but then realised you may not have got that (how confusing)!

If you could please just let me know if you received it, I'd really appreciate it (either by email or on my talk). Sorry to bother you! I hope you and your cats are well! tamsin 02:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tamsin! :)

It's so nice to get a friendly letter! :) I did indeed get your questions, which I answered straight away. But I found my own answers a little gushy and perhaps unhelpful to a scholar, so I thought I'd better wait a bit before sending them off, in case I had something better to say — or at least a better way of saying them. ;)

Then midweek I got distracted tilting at windmills, — oops, I mean giants —, and then a host of other responsibilities and distractions swarmed down on me like a murder of ravens, so I've been as busy as a hummingbird. :( But I'll revisit your questions tonight — if I can stay awake that long. 3) zzzzzzz......

Affectionately, Willow 04:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spherical multipole moments

Hi there, as far as I can see you are responsible for the definition of spherical multipole moments in terms of spherical harmonic functions. My question is: you take the complex conjugate of the spherical harmonic, why do you do that?--P.wormer 08:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I found the answer: I see that Jackson does this. A very reputable source, but nevertheless unfortunate, because all quantum mechanically oriented texts omit the star in the definition!--P.wormer 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi P! Thanks for coming to my page; it's great to meet a fellow lover of molecules and physics. I'm surprised that we haven't bumped into one another more, here in the halls of Wikipedia, but I guess I've been off doing other things.

I didn't take the convention from Jackson, although it's nice to know that such an august authority chose the same one. I chose it mainly for aesthetics; I wanted the unstarred harmonic to go with the potential, so I put the starred harmonic into the definition of the multipole moment. It doesn't affect anything as long as we're consistent; it also seemed prettier that way, and I knew that some authorities would share my sense of aesthetics. :) For the same reason, I always put e^iωt into the inverse Fourier transform (when you're "reconstructing" a time-domain function) and e^-iωt into the normal Fourier transform (when you're "analyzing" a function into its frequency-domain components). If you think it'd be better to use the other convention, we could change it over. We should check my other multipole moment articles (axial, cylindrical, etc. — I've yet to add the rectangular) to make sure that we're being consistent. I should really add some references, too; I wrote those articles as a total newbie here at Wikipedia, so I hadn't yet realized how important referencing was.

Talk to you soon, Willow 12:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherwood FAC

Well, that's it for me and FAC for awhile. There are several straws and several camels' backs over there. Someone else I know on wikipedia has referred to those kinds of requests as "bring me a shrubbery" or, simply, "shrubbery" requests. Excellent analogy, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 12:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh Awadewit, I'm really sorry that they've been giving you such a hard time over there. :( If you like, I'll shepherd it further, although I'm just returning now to editing after a few days being away. I do sometimes catch the tenor at FAC of "bow to me, wretch!", but I can only laugh at it. :) Let's talk very soon, I'm sorry that I have to dash away just now, Willow 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've begun to add more material to JJ; maybe that would be a fun diversion for you? I'm a little aghast at how much there is left to do there, but I'm sure that the two of us could work wonders! :) I'll be busy in the garden this weekend — you should see how all my berries are bursting out: raspberries, blueberries, lingonberries, black and red currants, gooseberries, jostaberries and several more native bushes. Life is so good, our Mother Nature so generous. :) But there's tons to be done there as well; I'll try to stop by here now and again, to see how you and JJ are doing. Warmly and supportively, Willow 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the Sherwood mess will end soon. There is only one oppose (apparently based on my refusal to use "19th century" and something else). If that keeps it from getting to FA, I will swear off FA forever. Awadewit | talk 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I had already decided to do just what you suggested. I am amassing my Joseph Johnson research materials; I have ordered the biography and will be going to the library soon to gather the other articles. (It really is amazing how someone seemingly so obscure as Johnson really does require such an extensive biography.) I look forward to the collaboration. I am also expanding Mary: A Fiction and Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, the articles on Wollstonecraft's two novels. I am hoping to eventually complete a Wollstonecraft "featured topic." Awadewit | talk 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am imagining your luscious berries now. Where I live, we have imported Chilean berries. They are not the same as homegrown, off the stem/vine berries, obviously. Awadewit | talk 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of you lately for another reason. The movie Miss Potter just came out on DVD, which I'd been longing to see; I knew that I would love it, and I did. I loved how things came to life for her, and I've danced myself around a music box with tears in my eyes. :) It was a sweet movie, and you came to mind because of its connection to children's literature. After the movie was over, I couldn't help but think how quickly it evolved from Sarah Trimmer and Original Stories from Real Life to Rudyard Kipling and Lewis Carroll to Peter Rabbit. I guess each author was filling in a new niche, a different age-group of readers. Anyway, I'm beginning to understand how you could devote your life to the history of children's literature.  :) Willow 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "evolved" as in "progressed"? A lot of people tend to see it that way. I try not to see it that way. I tend to try to see it as "evolved" as in "changed". Otherwise, you end up with what is called a "progress narrative", which implies that Carroll, Kipling and Potter are better than Wollstonecraft and Trimmer. The problem with that narrative is that the only reason we might believe that they are better is that we share more of the assumptions of Carroll, Kipling and Potter than we do of Wollstonecraft and Trimmer. Such progress narratives actually tend to reveal much more about the people telling them than about the actual history. Again, I don't know if this is what you were saying, but I know that many people do make this claim, even good scholars. It is disheartening to me. (I have recently been made the co-editor of a special volume on eighteenth-century children's literature of The Lion and the Unicorn. I am hoping, through the volume, that we can combat this "Whiggish" view of history even more.) Awadewit | talk 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Maybe you could grow currants in pots? I like the Red Lake variety; they're very easy to grow, and their fruit hangs for a very long time without going bad. The bush is maybe 3 feet tall, when full grown, and you might get fruit your first year, if you buy them a little more mature. :)

That sounds like a wonderful idea, except I live in a tiny apartment with no porch. :( Soon I hope to graduate and have a real job with a real two-bedroom apartment with a little porch. Ah, the luxury. Awadewit | talk 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, There's wonderful news all around; that you've been chosen as a co-editor for that academic volume, and that Mary Martha Sherwood has reached Featured Article status. Yeay! :D

Thanks. I was happy to see MMS finally become an FA as well. Now I can get back to editing, which is what I really enjoy. Somehow I have never considered FAC "editing". Awadewit | talk 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed mean "change" by "evolve"; the authors' works seem so different in kind, that I can't really imagine how one would compare them on a simple linear scale. For me, I was mainly impressed by the speed with which the field expanded, filling so many niches and developing so many novel styles; I had a mental image of a gas expanding to fill a space. I suppose that some people tend to compress all of reality into a linear scale of better and worse, winners and losers, greater and lesser, but that tendency seems its own punishment; one is robbed of the delights and glorious vision of a field in all its manifold dimensions.

What a relief. I just assume people mean "progress" because 99% of the time, they do, when referring to children's literature. I should have known you were smarter than that! I particularly like to study eighteenth-century children's literature because it reveals how assumptions about education and childhood have changed so dramatically in the last 200-300 years. It also helps me question my own assumptions - I always like that! I also agree that the linear model is a poor way to look at history; it almost always fails. Awadewit | talk 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pest, but if you wanted home-grown food for dinner, you could grow oak-leaf lettuce in a window box. You can cut the heads down, and they'll grow back two or three times afterwards. :) Lingonberries are also only 12" tall, although they're harder to find and grow. Willow 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the lettuce will grow where I am. Perhaps I will try it, although everything I grow dies (fish and hamsters included). Perhaps lettuce is a good place to start. Awadewit | talk 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two other ideas for your delight and degustation. :) Rubbing the rough leaves of a lemon verbena plant and smelling your own hands afterwards gives "a feeling of inward tranquility which religion and years of psychotherapy are powerless to bestow", to paraphrase Emerson; it's just the thing for a harried graduate student living in a small apartment. :) You might also grow globe basil and cilantro in your window-box; they're wonderful spices for cooking. Off to another day in my own garden while thinking of you, Willow 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Age of Reason

If you get a chance in the next couple of weeks, would you mind reviewing The Age of Reason? It's been sitting over at peer review for a while now. I thought it might attract some attention, but, alas, no. No rush at all, by the way. (It is, happily, one of my shorter articles.) Awadewit | talk 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It has now been well-reviewed.

I was wondering if you have time to review Transformer. I did a "peer review exchange program" with the editor, but I feel incredibly guilty that I could not actually review the article more. Since I know nothing about transformers, I became mired down in clicking on other articles to try and understand the topic. I'm sure the editor would greatly appreciate any help. His article has been sitting at peer review for a while. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for taking an interest in Transformer. As one electrical engineer once said about this article, it's difficult for a fish to describe water, so it's always appreciated when someone shows where an article is not clear. I need to respond to Awadewit as well, as I owe him/her a contribution to The Age of Reason's peer review, though I discovered today that someone had already done so. Regards, — BillC ^talk 17:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newton's theorem of revolving orbits

I have come to help you make your pictures more elegant and useful with a gnuplot tip. Before I do that, I want to tell you about what I found at Newton's theorem of revolving orbits.

Each of the ISBNs was in the new ISBN-13 version, which is a Good Thing. Each was hyphenated in the lazy and incorrect way used by Amazon.com, which is a Bad Thing. The resource I use constantly — to convert from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13, and to validate, and to correctly hyphenate — is here. (See the ISBN article for a thrilling (?) discussion of hyphenation, completely with a table of examples. For a good time, look up the examples; I tried to make them interesting.)

Next begins a saga. I noticed that your Clairaut reference was incomplete as to page numbers. Since I was already doing housekeeping, I thought I'd try a quick web search to see if I could add the missing number. Hah. I could not find a full citation using your data. So, I experimented with different searches, all the while learning more about Clairaut, visiting the Academy of Sciences site, and so on. Eventually I struck paydirt. This site, really about naval interests, had a list of Academy papers including astronomy. Better still, it had links to gallica, which has page images! Thus I was able to get the correct article and journal titles, complete with French accents, and visually confirm the page range. The only thing I'm not sure about is three numbers: 1745 (which I see at the bottom of the first page as "Mem. 1745"), 1747 (which I see at the top as a margin note, "Lû à l’Assemblée publique du 15 Nov. 1747."), and 1749 (which I see in the web index as "1749 (Année 1745).") I have guessed that 1749 is a volume number, 1745 is the year of the mémoire, and 1747 is the year in which it was presented. I've had enough fun, so I leave you to sort it out properly.

Finally, to the observation about gnuplot. (It's output is distinctive! But you should mention using it on the Commons pages. Also, at least one of the images has a complaint about no licensing.) Your images are all PNGs. For shame. It is almost as easy to produce SVGs, which will look much nicer and use less space and be editable (if another language Wikipedia wants to translate a label, say).

To produce SVG you need to do three things.

First, you want the default font to be one of these. The magic incantation is

set tics font "Bitstream Vera Sans, 20"

to set the font used for tic marks to "Bitstream Vera Sans" at a size of 20 points; but we can set the default for tics and labels and everything all at once. We do it as we ask for SVG. The spell is

set term svg size 640 480 font "Bitstream Vera Sans, 20"

to make the default image size 640×480; but choose a size that you like. (Remember, it will scale beautifully.)

Do not replot at this point; the text that should go in the SVG file will be dumped into your console! Instead, perform step two: choose a file directory. You may be able to do this by browsing; you can always do it with an explicit

cd 'your/directory/path/here'

command. (If you're doing this on Windows, be sure to use single quotation marks so backslashes don't misbehave.)

Third, direct output to a filename of your choosing. Wave your magic wand and say

set output 'roses.svg'

or whatever you want the name to be. Don't forget the ".svg" or you'll have to go rename the file later.

Everything is now ready; just

replot

and you've done it. But you will want to do an

unset output
unset term

to finish cleanly. (And you won't keep dumping more output into the file.)

You can upload the SVG files to Commons in the usual way. I think you'll be very pleased with the results. Let me know if you have any questions or trouble.

Enjoy. --KSmrq^T 14:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, KSmrq! I've never tried gnuplot before, but I appreciate your detailed instructions. I'll download it and give it a try. I feel bad for making others, however nice they are, to clean up after my PNG's. :( Thank you also for your help tracking down that Clairaut reference; I've used Gallica before, but I was feeling a little lazy yesterday — sorry! Willow 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be very naughty and tell you a graphics trick to help you make images prettier even without using SVG (but do try to make the switch when you have time to learn). Let's suppose you want the image to be 400×300. Multiply the dimensions by, say, 4; make an image of size 1600×1200. Then use any decent graphics program to shrink the image to the desired size by filtering and resampling. Be sure to not use a 256 image palette, but "true color". The jaggy appearance (an artifact of aliasing) will be replaced by a smoother look. (See supersampling.) At this point you may be able to reduce to 256 colors without objectionable degradation. I am assuming that you are not limited by using screen captures (or that you have a big enough screen). --KSmrq^T 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erasmus Darwin

Reading about JJ has brought Erasmus Darwin's The Botanic Garden and The Loves of the Plants to my attention again. I think that you might enjoy those poems. Awadewit | talk 10:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to a copy on google books. :) Awadewit | talk 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your really nice note! :) I'll confess, the premise of this work had always seemed odd to me; I'm a big fan of Keats and Shelley, but plant sex in poetry? But I'd never read it, and I'm so happy that I did; it has its own beauty, no? I suspect that Darwin chose his form because he wanted to teach an obscure subject that requires much memorization; so to aid his students memories, he versified the knowledge (nowadays he would've also set it to a catchy melody ;) and gave it a juicy bodice-ripper tone to wake his readers/students up and engage their, ummm, botanical interests. The poem is a little silly and sexist in places, but it's easy to forgive good Erasmus at a distance of two centuries. ;) Willow 03:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for your help at the FAC for Introduction to general relativity. I do understand the "Oppose" people, but I can't agree with them. As an aside, I do think that amateurs can learn the basics of general relativity, if they're diligent and patient enough with themselves — and know calculus already. I had despaired of ever learning it, but I think that was my own lack of confidence; once Geometry guy got me over the hump back in May, it's been a lot easier, although it still takes work. It seems similar to learning a language; eventually, something snaps into place and it all begins to make sense. Willow 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that Darwin made the choice to make his poem erotic; botany in the 18th century was already considered erotic (the names of plant parts? please). Many moralists also considered botany dangerous for women to engage in, since it would put thoughts of sex, seduction, reproduction, etc. into their heads (they wouldn't think of those things, otherwise, you know). There is a fascinating book on this called Flora's Daughters. By the way, there is almost nothing in the 18th century that isn't sexist. 200-300 years is a long time ago. No woman's movement, yet. The racism is actually even weirder; have you seen those Royal Society papers on how people change "races" depending upon where they live? Apparently, a white British person living in Africa could become black and an African who moved to England could become white. Eighteenth-century ideas of race are quite different from ours - not so fixed and scientific - very mutable. Sex was mutable, too; women could become men, because...well perhaps those details you don't want to hear? :) Fascinating stuff. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard some living Mormons say that black skin is the mark of Cain. I recall reading some of their Elders in the 1930's who believed that skin color correlated with righteousness; preaching to the Native Americans; these Elders reported that the skins of the Native Americans lightened visibly as they accepted the faith. According to their history, the Native Americans are the descendants of Israelites who emigrated to North America, I think around 400 AD. Strictly speaking, i think they're supposed to be the "bad" half of the emigres, the Lamanites, who killed off the "good" ones. IIRC, there was a long period during which people with black skin were not accepted into the LDS Church. I'm not sure what the present beliefs are, though. Willow 22:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have heard that, too; I don't think it is just Mormons, unfortunately. I saw a long Frontline about the Mormon church and it discussed the late inclusion of blacks (mainly Africans) into the church. See here to watch it online (it seems to slant pro-Mormon, though). Don't get me started on women and Mormonism. This is an interesting site about Mormonism, I think. You might like this story. I should probably stop before I get myself into hot water. Religious discussions tend to do that and I have very strong views on religion. :) Awadewit | talk 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about hot water! Language is so blunt a tool that it's hard to say exactly what you want (I feel that keenly when I try to describe the colors of fall leaves) and on such emotional topics it's hard not to hurt somebody or do someone an injustice. I didn't mean to pick on Mormons in particular, but just to illustrate that our world is not so far from the old one as we'd like. :( I like chatting to random people and, for some reason, people trust me on short acquaintance, which means that I sometimes hear darker secrets and stranger thoughts than I should. But perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that the world is stranger than I imagine, knowing myself to be a little odd as well. ;) Thanks for the links, I should learn more about all that Willow 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind the changes I've been making over at Joseph Johnson. There is a slight feminist slant to the page, now; let me know if it bothers you. Most editors don't seem to catch those slants in my writing. It is actually impossible to write a literature-type page without some kind of slant, be it Marxist, psychoanalytic, feminist, etc. Since we are co-editing this article, we should decide on the slant together. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind it at all — I just read it through, and it's a work of art! :) I'd made a list of about a dozen things I wanted to add, but you may have covered most of them already. I noticed a few typos along the way, missing close quotation marks and an errant Chard2002 reference, but we can fix those leisurely; I'm having guests over for dinner in a few hours! Perhaps I'm revealing my own biases, but I didn't detect any feminist bias whatsoever. :) Perhaps we should add more about Mary Hays?

• Art? It is more like a scrap heap at the moment, but, of course, that is modern art. :) Typos are the least of the problems over there - the paragraphs are incoherent! I promise I will attend to the writing soon. I just want to finish adding material from Tyson. I have to check out Braithwaite - I hope it's good. It would be nice to have some up-to-date material. (Look at the pictures, for a start, if you want to see a slight bias.) I would love more on Hays; her article on wikipedia is funny. I love the little one-line lead. If only I had time to write all of the eighteenth-century pages I wanted to. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal question between us: do you think I've been behaving badly at introduction to general relativity? I didn't expect my edits to be so controversial or to frustrate Markus so much. :( I hope that our present course of discussing the changes carefully in advance will pour oil on troubled waters and maybe clarify to him why I think the changes might improve the article. But if you think I should withdraw from editing it, then I'll do so. I've committed myself anyway to writing a Featured Article about the loop of Henle by September 1st, so I'd better get cracking, Harry Potter or no. ;) Willow 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't think there is anything wrong with what you have been doing. I know that often editors feel that their articles are wonderful and cannot be improved when they bring them to FAC (I have problems with this myself), but I don't think that's the issue here. I think poor Markus/Professor Poessel felt overwhelmed (I think this is his first major edit to wikipedia and I know it is his first FAC). If such a thing had happened to me the first time out, I'm not sure I would have stuck with it as doggedly as he has, frankly. I can't really speak to the comments you offered at FAC, since I know nothing about physics at all (I'm working on it, though - I'm watching lectures from the MIT open courseware project), but when I comment at FAC, I always consider the following when suggesting substantive changes: should the article pass without the material I am suggeting? If not, I mention it; if it is minor, I tend not to mention it, because I have seen too many good FACs go down in flames. Ex: I don't think that the E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial article should become an FA without a properly researched "Themes" section, so I have hung on over there for weeks to argue the case (why that FAC hasn't been closed, I don't know). An article about a film without a section discussing its meaning is absurd (the article originally had no themes section; it now has one referenced to the DVD commentary and other such stunning sources). In the course of the discussion, I was informed that "not all films have themes". That idea is worth combating. So, now I apply the "E.T. test" and the "shrubbery" test to articles at FAC.

• E.T. test - are there gaping holes or gigantic problems with the article?
• "Shrubbery" test - am I just asking the editors to bring me a shrubbery (Geogre came up with this allusion)?

Like I said, I don't know if your comments were E.T. or shrubbery, but that is what I now do when reviewing FACs. I may change that philosophy at some point, but that is my current stance (I do not want to become the dash police). You have been here far longer than I, so I assume that you know if you are crossing the virtual line at introduction to general relativity. It doesn't seem so to me, though. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tinkering with "Introduction to general relativity"?

Hi Willow; feel free to tinker; depending on the nature of your changes, we could also talk them over on the article's discussion page first, if you'd like. I guess that unless you were to insert big banners reading "'Introduction to...' articles rule!!!" or something along those lines, it shouldn't adversely affect the FAC. What I'm really hoping for, of course, especially now that I've seen the impressive scope of your contributions to WP as listed on your user page, is your co-operation when it comes to the real challenge: tackling the main article, general relativity, which I think could use a major overhaul. You've already read and reacted to my first cautious suggestions on that article's discussion page; once the "Intro to gr" FAC is over one way or the other (thanks for your support there, by the way), I hope to get some work done there. --Markus Poessel 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Markus, I'll be glad to help you in any way I can; I feel honored that you even ask! :) I've been learning rather willy-nilly these past two months, so I'm really excited about the subject, but you shouldn't expect me to know much. There will be huge gaps in my knowledge, although I'm pretty diligent in a library. ;) My own plan is to finish up Kepler problem in general relativity, and maybe bring it to FA; would you be so good as to help out there? Then maybe I'll try one or two artices on physical cosmology and gravitational radiation, to force myself to learn that stuff. But inbetween I'll be glad to help out with GR.

Maybe you can help me in understanding gravitational radiation? For the Wikipedia article, I want to find an exact solution of the Einstein field equations for a tranverse metric that represents a "sandwich plane wave"

where φ=x - ct. The field equations seem to require the relation

In particular, I want to find exact solutions η(φ), ζ(φ) that begin and end with a Minkowski metric, η=ζ=1 for all |φ| greater than a constant. The one book I found that discusses this at all just lets the metric crash and burn to η(φ)=0; even though it's only a coordinate singularity, it seems confusing and scary to readers like me so I'd like to avoid that if possible. Any suggestions? If it's feasible at all, there must be a paper that's done this already, right? Thanks for any insight or guidance you can lend, Willow 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that you might find a look at Rindler (Relativity. Special, general and cosmological, Oxford UP 2001, chapter 13 "An exact plane gravitational wave") helpful. On the matter of general relativity, what had started as a rather frustrating discussion on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Introduction_to_general_relativity might now turn into a systematic cooperative effort for giving general relativity a boost - have a look at the talk page. Uncle Albert is looking for a few good editors, and I'd be glad to have you aboard. --Markus Poessel 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't read your mail fully before replying. I think the main article is more important for now, especially with the merger thread hanging over Introduction to general relativity's head, but once that is over with (I think it can be fun, but it's gonna take time [to do it]⁶ right), I'm more than willing to have a look at the other articles of the gr family, including the Kepler problem. --Markus Poessel 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Markus,

Can I make an off-the-FAC-record suggestion for the Introduction to general relativity? The initial image seems a bit glitzy to me; gravitational waves aren't colored, black holes aren't white and the grey thing in the middle is probably Flamm's paraboloid, right? I don't think it helps the exposition or makes a daunted reader feel more comfortable with GR; it comes across a little as the opposite, a "shock-and-awe" image. Maybe it might be better to replace it with something more down-to-earth, something confirmed experimentally, maybe the Cassini picture? Anyway, just a suggestion, Willow 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion noted; I'll see if I can dig up an alternative image for the "Observations" section. As for the changes you made to the article, please let's see if we can find some consensus. I have listed some objections/suggestions on the article's talk page. --Markus Poessel 08:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformer

Hello again. You are going for a complete rewrite of the transformer article? Regards, — BillC ^talk 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I hope you're not mad at me for re-organizing the beginning so much; please feel free to change things as you see fit! I just wanted to make it a little easier on non-engineers, although I don't know how well I did; I felt as Awadewit did that yesterday's version was difficult to follow unless you already knew the subject, in which case you wouldn't need to read the article. I worked on the beginning so much because I thought that lay-people could "coast" to the end, once they had gotten off to a good start and understood the principles. It probably still needs a lot more clarification, but that's where Awadewit's gifts with writing can help us! :) Willow 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time that I responded to your question about your edits on this article. That you would spare the time to improve the readability is, of course, greatly appreciated. But I feel that such dramatic changes to any article are probably best discussed on the talk page first. Alfred Centauri brought up on the talk page some problems he had with the reworked version, and I raised a point or two myself. The section on the transformer under load, and the important distinction between magnetising current and load current was removed, as was what happens to the flux when the secondary is put under load. This was a section I had worked hard to get right—if not readable as it might be—and it was an explanation that is not understood by all electrical engineers, as the talk page archives show. The conservation of power in an ideal transformer is not the means by which most textbooks discuss why the ratio of currents is the inverse of the turns ratio; rather it is by consideration of the magnetic circuit. I have made several attempts to merge the concepts, either in the article, or in my sandbox, but keep running into a brick wall, and abandoning my edits. Any insight you can offer as to why you thought these sections should have been deleted would be appreciated. With respects, — BillC ^talk 23:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

A reminder: Image:Newton revolving orbits 1 inv2 inv3.png is tagged for deletion because it has no license information.

I have created two SVG files with gnuplot and uploaded them to Newton_revolving_orbits_1_2_3_6.svg and Newton revolving orbits 1 inv2 inv3.svg. I was too lazy to duplicate your colors, but if you wish to do so you can easily edit the SVG files (which are just text).

Behind the scenes: The six colors I regularly use are those most special for human color perception, as mediated by the opponent process of color vision. Everyone in the world (with normal color vision and enough color names in their language) chooses these colors as pure red, green, blue, and yellow — and, of course, white and black. The original linguistic survey by Berlin and Kay is still famous. I waded through more recent research to find exact numeric values for these colors to convert to sRGB color space (the Web standard).

Enjoy. --KSmrq^T 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you very much, KSmrq, both for the reminder and the images (+advice!). I definitely need to read up on all that, although I seem to have gotten myself mired in other things right now. ;) Have to go soon, Willow 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boink!

You have mail, nami! :) Love you, Phaedriel - 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, patsi! :D You always make me so happy, descending like an angel out of the blue when I'm feeling blue myself. I still owe you some flower pictures to replenish the supply that you lavished on me. :) Have to go take care of my friends at home but talk to you soon, Willow 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Willow!

Wanna be an admin?(I don't think you have been asked this before, and it is certainly long overdue.)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, dear Cronholm; I'm really touched and you're very kind to think of me! :) Would you be upset, though, if I couldn't do it? I sense somehow that I'm not cut out for being an admin. For one thing, I'm very unreliable and clueless about all the policies and whatnot at Wikipedia; even if I got the tools, I'm not sure that I would know what to do with them! You can count on me to help you in any scrape, to do my utmost to restore peace in tempests and light in darkness; and I'll gladly devote both my neurons to helping decide some important questions for Wikipedia. But I have another sort of magic to weave here, by writing articles; random though they seem, the silver threads are making a beautiful pattern. Willow 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...I expected that answer ;) (well, the "no" part, the rest was a pleasant surprise as always). Still, you would make a wonderful admin, even if you only used the tools a single time. You embody the spirit of this place, everything else would, and does, follow from that. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a good tradition of Wikipedian admins who primarily work on articles: Tim is a fine example, even though he has developed several more administrative interests recently. (See also User:David Eppstein for a recently appointed admin in this tradition.) Anyway, your RfA would be a snowball "yes", no matter what you said for question one. An extra button or two on your browser will not stop you weaving your magic. Think about it :) Geometry guy 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy!

I really like the new italic signature; a subtle and refined script for a subtle and refined gentleman. :)

I hope that you, too, can forgive me. I feel the warmth of all your invitations, like a cat basking in sunlight, and I won't forget that feeling ever, methinks. It's a perverse quirk of my personality, but I don't think I can accept any kind of power here, beyond what I have already. I'm a beginning apprentice practicing a delicate magic and having those powers would make that magic harder than it already is for one as clumsy as myself. It's hard to explain, and I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but I hope that you'll understand me. Willow 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Willow - I'm not at all disappointed and I understand entirely. I was only suggesting that you "could" be an admin, not that you "should". The main thing is that you continue to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, so that others will benefit from your shining light. As for my signature, it was not my idea: I spotted someone else doing it that way and it just made sense, like a handwritten signature at the end of a typed letter. Geometry guy 18:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georg

But I really came here because Ling now tells me he thinks our friend Georg Cantor is more or less done, and has submitted it for Peer Review. I don't want to distract you from relativistic thoughts, but I see you still have this article on you to-do list, so I thought I would let you know. Geometry guy 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy reviewed it, and now it is at FAC. Comments welcome! Geometry guy 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformer

I finally got around to looking at Transformer again. I still think it is too technical (I am beginning to feel like a broken record). My comments are on the article's talk page. Awadewit | talk 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

Thanks so much for doing that; I'm going to make some suggestions over there to clarify the beginning still further. Quick check: is the first paragraph of the "Basic principles" section understandable? I'm thinking of adding some pictures to illustrate the two concepts, electromagnet and induction, and then how they come together in the transformer.

It is much better, yes. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry also that I was gone for a few days; a much-loved, but rather elderly relative needed my help for a few days. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten my copy of Harry Potter, which may impede my editing over the next few days. ;) I'm going to try to juggle all of our pet articles at once, but I might drop one or two; watch out for indefinite articles. ;) I did read a lot of Catullus while I was away; I'd forgotten how wonderful his poetry is. Willow 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to see the Harry Potter movie right now, as a matter of fact. I am also juggling too many articles. I'm trying to "finish" some of them up so that I don't feel so frazzled. I would like to focus on just one, especially since I am making a big push on my dissertation right now. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, either; I'm looking forward to it very much, especially Luna Lovegood, whom I kind of identify with. ;) I just noticed that you asked me a few weeks ago what I like to play on the piano; sorry for not noticing earlier! Ummm, I'm kind of promiscuous in my musical tastes; I like nearly everything or at least I can usually see where a piece is coming from. I have two incongruous favourite musics, which somehow resemble my loves of knitting and science. On the one hand, I like happy music that flows as clearly as water, like Scott Joplin and some of the Moments Musicaux by Schubert — which I can't play worth a darn. :( On the other hand, I also really enjoy contrapuntal pieces, especially those of Bach; I try to awaken each voice to a life and personality all its own. When I'm all alone with a piano, I delight in turning children's tunes into 2-part fugues, which kind of combines the best of both worlds. :) I like dance pieces, too, but I much prefer dancing to playing, if it's possible. Willow 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Willow. Before we have another round of major edits to Transformer, could we have some discussion on the talk page? Thanks a lot. Respectfully, — BillC ^talk 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi BillC, I was planning on doing just that after I finish here and sending a "thank you" note to Tim Vickers. I don't want to do anything controversial with the article, but I'd like to convince you that we could make the beginning even gentler for the lay-reader, while preserving all the technical details for the practicing engineer. See you on the Talk page soon, Willow 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Random responses to above.

• I just purchased the Harry Potter book. I am, of course, now done with it. Late night reading finished it off. We'll have to discuss it when you've read it. I'm curious what you think of it.
• I thought that the Harry Potter movie was the best of the five so far. Perhaps that's because it didn't have any quidditch scenes!
• I'm so impressed that you can compose fugues! I definitely can't do that. Right now, I'm working on the D minor Prelude and Fugue by Bach. I usually play classical, with the occasional showtune thrown in. My love is Chopin. I know that's cheesy, but I can't help it; his music is just so achingly beautiful.
• Dancing is the bane of my existence. I was actually asked to quit ballet as a child because I was so terrible. Usually they'll teach anyone, but not me, apparently. I love ballet, but my total lack of balance and grace makes me a poor dancer. (Remember how I broke my ankle a few weeks ago? There you go - total lack of balance.)
• I hope your relative has improved in health. I was sorry to hear that. Awadewit | talk 14:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh Awadewit, It's so good to hear from you, like spring after winter. :)

Likewise. Willow-less days are cloudy. Awadewit | talk 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ballet wasn't always good to me, either, although I have very fond memories of dancing the Shy Debutante of Offenbach's Gaîté Parisienne on stage — for parents. ;) I kind of outgrew ballet, literally — a little too tall and not lithe enough. :( I still love to dance, though, all types of dance; I love the feeling of rapport between bodies, which reminds me of communicating with horses and other animals. My balance is likewise lame, and I was always flat-footed even when on point; but I can usually make my falling look like swooping, so that people imagine that I'm flying. ;)

Speaking of swooping, Chopin is awesome. He totally doesn't get enough credit for his harmonic genius, and his gift for shaping a phrase.

I agree. It is actually difficult to shape those all of those phrases effectively. They are really quite intricate. I'm working on a Nocturne now in which the shaping must happen in three registers at one point. It doesn't always come out right for me, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I got HP as soon as I got home, and unexpectedly finished it in one evening. I can see why they called it a Bildungsroman. It was different than I expected — I really expected a redemptive tragedy, but that may have been impossible given the remaining two movies. I missed Moaning Myrtle, there were perhaps a few too many serendipitous elements, but overall I liked it. Do you understand how to parse the prophecy now?

I really wanted it to be a tragedy, but I had a feeling that Rowling wouldn't kill off the hero of a children's book - that is very rare. I felt that it was overly long as well - too much background filler. It is often cool to just let those questions remain. (Unfortunately, I had pretty much guessed the prophecy before.) Awadewit | talk 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I still don't understand the prophecy; I must be the densest person in Potterdom! I'd guessed that the scar was a horcrux, and was expecting a Dorian Gray moment when V. blasted HP and lost one of his own lives instead. Was the "other" meant to be the piece of V's soul lodged in Harry's scar? The unknown power seemed to be left ambiguous as well, although that part didn't trouble me as much; the ambiguity is kind of nice. :) Willow 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's simply neither Harry nor Voldemort can live without the other: "neither would live, neither could survive" (691). That is why Harry should really have died. Since they are tied together through the scar, they should either both live or die. The fake-out is annoying and nonsensical in my opinion. Introducing the language of soul is also odd; "souls" were never that important in the previous books. If that is truly the meaning of the prophecy (their souls are tied together and once Voldemort's is destroyed, Harry is free) and it relies on soul mythology, the books did a very poor job of making souls important. To introduce such important mythology at the end is poor form. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer makes souls of the most profound importance early on, so its play with souls is interesting.) I was annoyed by the Christ imagery (I wondered if it was a response to all of the religious criticism of the books). That's my take so far (on only one reading, of course). Awadewit | talk 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I foresaw that aspect of the imagery early on (holly versus yew wands, for example), which is why I was thinking Harry would sacrifice himself to save Ron and Hermione ("No greater love..."). What I didn't see coming was that Harry's self-sacrifice would protect the others from Voldemort, just as his mother's sacrifice had protected him. It's really close to the theological idea, as I'm sure you know. The serendipity about who had taken the Elder Wand first was the part that seemed too Deus ex machina to me, although admittedly it provides a mechanism for Harry's well-developed character to vanquish V. and is one of those ambiguous powers of Harry that Voldemort knows not. Willow 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also for your kind wishes; all is well again, but every story, followed long enough, ends in a winding sheet. :( The key to a happy story is finding a sunny spot at which to rest one's pen, to paraphrase G. K. Chesteron. Willow 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I should be working on so many other things (Transformer, Georg Cantor, photon re-mediation (see below), etc.) , but I couldn't resist doing a little more Catullus today. I'm an awful procrastinatrix when it comes to things that seem difficult for me. But perhaps you'd like to work on Introduction to general relativity in a day or two? It was fun working together, and I'm feeling drawn back there, to finish the work that began so well; I think Markus would enjoy it, too. :) Willow 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Markus is afraid he scared you away. :) Awadewit | talk 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's funny! :D I guess I have been lame about getting back to it, so I can understand why he might think so. I just wanted to let my thoughts stew a bit before I said something foolish again; it's probably faster for everyone if I do. ;) Besides, Catullus was just too tempting. I'd love to do Sappho's poems as well, but not enough have survived intact. :( Willow 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loop

Thanks, but I did very little, just a bit of reverting and blocking. As to the article, sure but I'm also committed to Oxidative phosphorylation (my current enthusiasm) and Autism as a general editing request, but I'll be happy to add to and edit your kidney page, I suppose there must be some literature on such things. Tim Vickers 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! I'd already noticed your latest enthusiasm, which I'm very happy about; it's such an important topic and the old article was in dire need of sprucing up. This loopy nephron article may be quixotic, though, so I'll try not to distract you too much from productive things. Admiringly, Willow 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

...for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georg Cantor. I left some replies, which may or may not be relevant... later! Ling.Nut 03:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD type question

I know that this is not quite the place to ask this, but you are the encyclopedia expert around here now, so I will ask you. I read on here in the Physics rewrite that most of the readers of WP just want a few bits of information when they look up an article; they are unlikely to read past the first few sentences, or past the LEAD. This agrees with my own experience and intuition. Did anyone ever study this? What do you think?--Filll 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that our readers are heterogeneous and their motivations for reading Wikipedia idiosyncratic. To be sure, many readers will want only to look up random factoids, but I think others will sincerely want to learn a subject, or at least familiarize themselves with the basic ideas and arguments. Perhaps they've read about a topic somewhere and would like a fresh perspective? Or maybe a student is struggling to learn something in school and hopes to find a better explanation on Wikipedia than their present teacher is giving them in class? The teachers themselves might read Wikipedia to bone up on a subject before they teach it, perhaps because they never quite understood it when they were students. A government official or a business executive might want to learn about a technology or a scientific topic before committing serious money to developing an idea based on it. Screenplay writers might do some initial research on a culture or subculture before writing about them, and novelists writing about science might want to get their facts straight before embarrassing themselves in print. I estimate that there are roughly a zillion reasons for wanting to read Wikipedia. ;) However, I don't know of any formal studies about this. Willow 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are many potential uses. And I think that the number of people who use it is growing. Many reporters apparently go to Wikipedia first before writing an article in a given area. Many of them are quoting WP even in their articles. Lawyers working on briefs use WP to get familiar with certain topics. Scientists in surveys have admitted to frequently referring to WP for assistance with certain topics. I have noticed that travel agents and radio and television show producers often use WP as a source. Many towns that want to produce web entries for themselves just copy the WP entry for themselves, verbatim (which is sort of a scarey concept). I have even found some professional chemistry and medical websites that just quote WP as the source of definitions in their glossaries, which I find absolutely astounding.

However, in spite of all this, I maintain that the average user does not want to learn a subject in depth. They just want a definition, essentially like an expanded version of a dictionary definition. And so LEADs and lead sentences should be written accordingly.--Filll 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantor: does this help?

• [1] Ling.Nut 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling,

I'm a little sorry for having said anything except Support at FAC, since I wasn't trying to burden you with yet more work. The edits are a clear step in the right direction, but my feeling is that we could and should do more. I would have two subsections for lay-people under "Work" (the first two) devoted to set theory and the different types of infinity, respectively. After the two lay-centric subsections, you can feel free to dive unapologetically into the high-level stuff. But I wouldn't mix the high and the low within a single subsection; let there be a clear punctuation. As for the level of the explanation within the lay-centric subsections, consider trying them out on people in your family: your parents, your siblings, your grandmother's sister, whomever. I'm happy to help — although I write inscrutable prose worse than anyone — but you'll have to be patient with me. I'm getting tired of thinking so hard all the time — and usually slightly off-kilter or incorrectly — so I'm taking a little vacation inside passion-addled poetry. Despite the FAC for Georg Cantor, I don't think we need to rush anything. Good luck and warm wishes, Willow 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-guy leaving the encyclopedia...

• See this. Ling.Nut 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help -- from someone with physics, with German, and with wisdom

Hi Willow,

Your user page is really beautiful. I warm to it immediately. I stumbled onto this little corner of wikipedia through a general search on photon rest mass. I found your page, at Mass of the photon; so I thought I would drop you a quick line.

Recently I put a lot of work into cleaning up a biology of Fritz Zwicky, and in the process I have mortally offended, it seems, an individual who had put a lot of work into it previously — unfortunately mostly to do with defending Tired light models. W. Kehler is an amateur astronomer from Germany, who has been contributing to many articles here over the last two months or so; but his contributions tend to get reverted by other physicists. Me included. Unfortunately, he uses a dynamic IP cluster, so there is no stable IP address and no stable user account. In an attempt to communicate, I created a subpage for him in my own User space, and he is engaging with me there. It is tough to follow what he is saying, quite apart from the vast gulf we have in our approach to physics.

Recently he has been speaking of a non-zero rest mass to the photon. My understanding is that all experimental work is basically putting upper bounds on any non-zero rest mass, classical physics implies a zero rest mass, and the theoretical preference remains for a zero mass particle even in unified theories. I'm going to try and keep engaging him a bit longer, but your more expert eye might be helpful -- especially if you can read German. And you seem to be a very gentle and conciliatory soul. The page is Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr. Kehler. If you would, just have a quick peek. You'd be welcome to join in the morass if you could see any benefit in it; if so you may tell Mr. Kehler I brought this to your attention. However, I do not ask for active participation... I'm not sure if more people would be a help or not. But I would appreciate a calm head and a quiet word of advice if you can figure out what is going on.

Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note, Duae, of a most excellent name! It's a pleasure to meet you, although also a little bittersweet, today being a day that I said goodbue to another wiki-friend. I'll try to help, and I'm hopeful that we can untie our mutual silken knots, if we can muster the patience. But today is a bad day for me; I'll drop by tomorrow. Please be patient with me in turn, Willow 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I dive in again, it would help to know what you think are the kernel problems. If we could identify those and resolve them, everything else might become clear for everyone with the least work. Looking over your conversations, I seem to see three fundamental questions on Mr. Kehler's mind: in what sense do photons have mass; the experimental status of "tired light"; and whether other cosmological theories besides the "Big Bang" are consistent with experiment. His questions seem to be hierarchical: wishing to question the Big Bang model, he considers the "tired light" model to account for the observed redshifts; in turn, a non-zero mass of the photon might provide a mechanism for making photons "tired".

To resolve the issues, we could start at either end of the hierarchy or both; we could raise other experimental data supporting the Big Bang theory unaccounted for by tired light, or we could clarify in what sense photons are massless. Do you have any preference?

Various unscientific issues were also discussed in your conversations, such as whether various people have really understood various topics, who was the last genius, whether sundry people have gotten a fair hearing from the scientific community, etc. My advice would be to ignore all those issues, and restrict our attention to questions that can be answered by experiment. Do you agree? Willow 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at this point I am inclined to give up. I don't see any prospect for useful discussion any more. I should not have bothered you with it. I was tring to track down some basis for Mr Kehler's claim that Planck calculated a photon rest mass, and found your page in the search. I left the note on an impulse.

You'd be very welcome to see if you can help clarify matters for Mr Kehler, if you wanted. But I don't think anything is going to help. It was probably a bad idea for me to put up the page in the first place.

But one good thing came out of it. I did enjoy reading your page! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More transformers

Hi again, thanks for your reply. I have posted a reply on the talk page. I'm not seeking a treatment of phasor relationships and complex impedances within the article either. The only reason why I did on the talk page was to show what the problem with the conservation of power equation is. It's just that I would really like to avoid a conservation of power explanation for the transformer effect: I don't think it is explanatory, and it cannot explain at all the unloaded transformer. None of the five textbooks I have in my room now use it as a means of explanation, for example. With regards, — BillC ^talk 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad wiki day

Oh, Willow. Sometimes I despair of wikipedia succeeding. See this FLC for the debate over my list of works by Joseph Priestley. Awadewit | talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And this review of Wollstonecraft's Thoughts on the Education of Daughters. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have those, too. :( Although, lately, my bad wiki days are more like, "Willow embarrasses herself again by not grasping something really basic." (eyes roll in self-exasperation) Take heart, Awadewit! :) The reviews aren't bad, just finicky. Some people feel helpful only if they're making criticisms/suggestions for improvement; so it's a compliment to your article that the only thing to fault is its dashes. :) It would be a nicer world if more people would preface their suggestions with something like, "This is a useful and complete article, a fine contribution to Wikipedia, and I appreciate the work that went into it. My only concern is..." But you know how it is, both here and in the real world; not everyone takes in the big picture. Willow 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Really basic like general relativity? :) Cut yourself some slack! Awadewit | talk 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the finickiness that bothers me. No one is going to be completely pleased with any article they see, but that doesn't mean they have to list all of the random things that bother them. Awadewit | talk 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the tide has turned at that FLC. Perhaps it was blind faith, but I felt sure that it would; its quality shone despite the finics and cynics. ;) But I'm also sure that the finics were well-intentioned; they probably would have felt remiss as reviewers, had they not shared with you their vision of how to improve the article.

Thanks also very much for the slack. :) I was sore at myself for not really seeing how a transformer works, at least not in detail, although I also feel like I'm struggling to keep my head above water with general relativity. I hate to think that I'm wasting other people's time and contributing to the stereotype that Wikipedia is full of ignorant people declaiming nonsense. :( Willow 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I took a little holiday yesterday and walked to our county fair, as I always do this time of year. There were a lot of beautiful animals there, and I love drinking in the care that the younger kids are lavishing on their sheep, goats, rabbits, cattle, etc. I saw and felt a few awesome Merinos, Suffolks and Rambouillets, and brought home a little sheared tuft for my kitties; they love the smell of lanolin as much as I do. :) Willow 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds lovely. Awadewit | talk 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)