User talk:WillowW/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article Daima up for speedy delete 2 Harold Pinter 3 Rights of Men FAC 4 X-ray crystallography 5 Rfam again 6 MW 7 Catullus 2 Apology and Praise 8 Out of character 8.1 End of the wait 8.1.1 Common ground? 8.1.2 Uncommon ground? 9 Newbie advice 10 Coming soon 11 Do you have time for a peer review? 12 Fulfilling promise 13 A project we might be interested in 14 What does this graph mean? 15 Apology 16 Good luck 17 Enzyme stub 18 Ping! 19 Daima

[edit] Article Daima up for speedy delete

A tag has been placed on Daima requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Chromancer 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Pinter

When reviewing Good Articles, I like to read the article without reading the talk page so I'm able to bring a fresh set of eyes to my review, unbiased by discussion. I was reading about John Fowles's The French Lieutenant's Woman just this week, and so Harold Pinter on the GA candidates page jumped out at me. I saw a stunningly detailed and researched article, and assumed it would be a few weeks work to get it into a condition where it is comprehensible to a general audience. I see now the situation's a bit more complicated than that. I couldn't tell where you and NYScholar left the Pinter page and I'm not sure where (or if) to jump in here. It looked on his talk page as if he's taking a Wikibreak. --JayHenry 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay; welcome to my Talk page! :)

NYScholar and I were working on improving it to WP:GA standard, albeit at a slow pace, by mutual agreement. I agree that the article is excellent. My prevailing reservation was that its language and sentence construction were sometimes arduous for non-scholars: long sentences, complex subordinate clauses, factually ambiguous words, etc. I was working with NYScholar to clarify the prose in a way that made it more intelligible to a wider audience without marring its academic accuracy, a goal that (I feel) is more important than passing a GA or not. It would be a real pity if such a good article went lost in translation, don't you agree? Once that was done, I was going to pass it as a GA, with a blessing to go on to FA. Without the clarifications, however, I feared that its intelligibility issues would doom it at FAC, causing it to fail under the "clear prose" criterion. As I'm sure that you know, the reviewers there are incredible finicky about FA prose, and I fear many would not be patient with obscure or poorly defined formulations. I've been lame about getting back to it this past week, having been busy, but I was intending to return there this week. If you'd like to join in as another reviewer, that'd be great! :) Willow 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and what a wonderful talk page it is. I'm a bit humbled by the company actually. My sympathies are in step with yours on the Pinter article: the important thing is that it's brilliantly researched, the rest is mostly just details as far as I'm concerned. General readability (and just overall length) is, I agree, the biggest issue with the article. It's a bit hagiographic for my tastes too actually, but not beyond what I can live with. I simply didn't realize you had intended to do the GA review when I put the article on hold. I don't think there's any conflict in you continuing to do so. I will defer to your preference. --JayHenry 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, I moved your comment on 'Proper limits of GA reviewing?' from WT:GA to WT:GAN; since it deals with the nomination and reviewing process, it is more likely to have more eyes over there than on the talk page of the GA article listings. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like another editor moved the question back to WT:GA#Proper_limits_of_GA_reviewing.3F The response is that reviewers shouldn't have edited before the review, but it's okay and maybe even encouraged to do so after. That seems to agree with what I've observed (certainly we see that at FAC). If you'd like to complete the GA process, I do think you've earned NYScholar's trust (and I've marked the article as holding). Hopefully, either way, we'll cross paths again. I'm super impressed with the detail, care and patience you've given that review. --JayHenry 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your really nice letter, Jay! How about we do the review as follows? I'll work with NYScholar until we're both happy with the article and it's ready to be passed as a GA; then you can give it your imprimatur as being GA-worthy. Your approval should allay any impartiality concerns. Of course, if you have some ideas or suggestions for the article, please feel free to join the party any time you'd like! :) Willow 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. I have a few suggestions that I'll make once I've had the chance to read completely through the previous discussions. (Don't want to offend by reiterating a rejected suggestion.) --JayHenry 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm so glad that we're agreed. :) Let's reconvene when you've gone through it all and talk about the road forward. :) Willow 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the use of concurrent single quotation within double quotation is incorrect, I think enough work has been done that this is reasonably at GA level, and I'd be happy to pass. I fear there's a tough road to FA for this. When I re-read the article carefully today I noticed dramatic improvement from when I first read it a week ago. --JayHenry 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the suggestions and comments of both Willow and JayHenry. The seven days after JayHenry placed the hold on the article vis-a-vis the "good article" review have expired. I hope that the two of you will be able to pass this article now (As I've said, I have to turn to my non-Wikipedia work.) Thanks to both of you for your help. I am posting here since Willow is the first reviewer; I hope that the two of you will coordinate your reviews with each other and be able to pass this article. --NYScholar 07:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi NYScholar, and welcome to my Talk page as well! :)

I reviewed the article again and, just like JayHenry, I was wonderfully impressed at all the improvements you've made in it. I went through it one last time, mainly to split up some sentences that were either very long or didn't cohere strongly. Then, given Jay's blessing above, I went ahead and promoted it to a Good Article; you'll find it there listed at the top under "Recently listed Good Articles" and also under "Writers".

As Jay and I both noted, the page is well-worthy to become a Featured Article and I encourage you to do that, although you may feel like Daniel walking into the lions' den. ;) Of course, we'll Support you, but the objections there can sometimes become odd and strangely heated. We three should probably take some thought together about how to forestall some of the most likely (superficial) objections, to spare us grief and straighten the sometimes tortuous path to FA. Also, we might ask other friendly people who are experts at successful Featured Articles, such as Awadewit and Tim Vickers, to give us the benefit of their insights. :) Good luck and best wishes, Willow 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Willow (and JayHenry). As he says, I did feel that I could trust the process under your review. It was a lot more time-intensive than I would ever have imagined, however. Given the time-crunch and the work I have to do otherwise, I am pleased that the "good article review" process has reached this conclusion. (I noticed a bunch of small edits that occasionally I had to correct so that they are accurately reflecting punctuation of quotations from sources (ellipses are in the sources already sometimes (spaced dots); I've been using the html code recommended ("…") for those I add as editorial interpolations. In quoting from Pinter's plays, because he himself uses three dots for pauses (and there are many of them), the scholarly convention is to put one's own actual ellipses within brackets. I have not provided any such ellipses of his own words in my quotations from his texts. I use the unspaced periods for those that originate in secondary texts quoting him (the quoter's). I've tried to maintain the consistent QP and ellipsis style throughout the whole article (American English); where the original is in British English, I follow it exactly.

Thank you for all your hard work. Given what you say about the "Featured Article" review procedure, I'm not up to it now (may not be for a few months--as I just took on another writing commitment in my non-Wikipedia life, making three new work projects for this quarter); I will look in from time to time if/when I can manage it. With a new film out (opening this Friday), Pinter will probably be much in the news (reviews), and there may be activity in Pinter-related articles (sections, works, etc.) from anon IP users and other new users that one may need to check and verify for consistency, accuracy, and relevance. I added a new source today to both Harold Pinter and Selected bibliography for Harold Pinter. But, otherwise, I hope to be doing my other work. If you and JayHenry and/or others work on the featured article advice, please let me know via the talk page of the article (or whereever it is most appropriate); perhaps on this talk page. I'll keep both on my watch list in the near future. --NYScholar 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rights of Men FAC

If you have a moment, perhaps you could comment on A Vindication of the Rights of Men? It is currently up for FAC here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 22:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK! I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you on the peer review quickly. :( Let me consider the article for a while, though? I'd really prefer to discuss my impressions with you privately before launching them out at FAC; I'm apt to misunderstand things, and discussing with you would help me get a fuller perspective. :) Well, that, and I'm also apt to say silly things to you that I might be embarrassed about. ;) Willow 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Please note that I did take your concerns very seriously (I mentioned them in my statement at the FAC). However, I do worry about the article becoming dominated by an explication of the French Revolution and British reform movements. I think that my revision of the "Historical context" section did fix some of what you pointed out, although not all. No one at the FAC seems interested in this question, though. I had hoped other people would respond to it, so that we could have other opinions on the matter. Two is not a very good data set, is it? Unfortunately, other issues have come to dominate the FAC. (Willow rarely writes silly comments! That's part of her beauty!) Awadewit | talk 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm really blushing! :) You might be surprised how encouraging and heartening your wonderful comments are for me, like rain on a drooping peony. I do say silly things, all the time and vexingly so; but I also feel a flickering hope of kinship with our beloved JJ. Perhaps if I live long enough and constantly learn from my mistakes, my friends will write afterwards "those who knew her best will readily bear testimony that they rarely heard her say an unkind thing." :)

I'll look at VRM tonight and give it all the thought I can muster, Willow 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Hey, have you noticed that the Catullus poems are being edited by sundry Wikipedians (usually anonymous)? I'm so happy that others are taking them good places. They're small edits so far, but I'm just thrilled that others can see the good in them as well. :) Willow 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that wonderful? Awadewit | talk 07:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I definitely need our word today: amaxopesy is occurring at the VRM FAC. Awadewit | talk 07:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are no cheap seats in Valhalla, but it's a pity that you should suffer the "straw-bed death" of British English. ;) If it's any comfort, I think you handled yourself very well, with poise and pertinence. I've read Wollstonecraft's VRM thoroughly, but only once, so I'd like to go through it again. I'm beginning to brood over the section Structure and major arguments, which is altogether accurate but somehow (for me) seems too removed from the primary text. Speaking just for myself, it doesn't seem to capture the pith of Wollstonecraft's message and her stark, eloquent delivery. But perhaps non-trivial changes should wait until after the FAC?

Recent scholarship has moved away from focusing on her biting rhetoric to focusing on her political arguments. Too bad - I like the scathing attacks, myself. I love the literature of the 1790s precisely for its passionate rhetoric. One could almost say its "passionate reason". That is one reason I like The Age of Reason so much as well. Awadewit | talk 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, a speculative question that a scholar might have addressed: do you think Wollstonecraft intended to remain anonymous indefinitely when she wrote the work? It seems so from its initial anonymous publication; she might have a motivation, too, since it's a pretty severe polemic of a major public figure, which might backfire on her. I ask because, at several passages, I sensed that she was laying a false trail away from her doorstep; in particular, she seemed to adopt conspicuously male-typic imagery when speaking of herself (warrior & lion metaphors; her frequent characterization of her arguments as "manly"). Wollstonecraft probably reckoned with the possibility that reviewers would discount her work (as they did do) once they'd deduced or even suspected her gender or, perhaps, her identity from her gender and friendship with Johnson. It's pertinent because I found myself wondering whether her suggestion that women can best contribute to society by bearing and educating children was a similar cloak, writing what a typical (more enlightened) male then might have written. Another stray thought, Willow 12:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember seeing anything speculating on MW's original intentions regarding anonymity - I think it might be a tad too speculative - even for literary scholars! I think that she intentionally adopted the male persona, though - she does that in VRW, too, in a way. It lends credibility to her writing - that is also part of how she challenges Burke's aesthetic. However, the entire text is suffused with more "feminine" traits as well. There are some reviews that say things like "we should have known"! All of this is what makes MW such a challenging and interesting figure to write about. By the way, what did you think about the changes to the "Historical context" section? Improvements? Awadewit | talk 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It definitely read better for me; thank you for making all those improvements! :) I'm still a little troubled, though, that Burke's opinions are being characterized in an unnuanced way. It's natural that Wollstonecraft should do that — bold polemic is not really compatible with weighing matters judiciously and generously giving your debate-partner the benefit of the doubt. (I also thrill at such prose, especially if it's so eloquent as Wollstonecraft's! ummm, and if I agree with it. <sheepish grin> I don't find Wollstonecraft unreasonable at all.) But we, in our era and with our perspective, as encyclopedians, should be able to set each protagonist's arguments in context and accord each one their measure of truth, no?

The question vexing me is whether we are being fair to Burke and presenting his arguments in a nuanced way? I'm don't know myself, since I'm still near the beginning of his long, long pamphlet and I haven't read any scholarship on him. But my sense so far is that, beyond his banal scorn and theatrical style, his underlying message was more like, "This revolution could get really bad, really quickly, because people are being motivated by abstract ideals and not concerning themselves with the practical business of statecraft. Many pitfalls, internal and external, await the unwary, bringing misery; and people are not always as nice as one might think, especially where power and money are concerned. So I'm reserving judgment on the success of this revolution until France has set up some stable system of government that will meet their needs adequately; my prediction is that they will fail and that they were better off under the traditional rule of the king." It reminds me a little of Thucydides, who was no democrat but still very insightful and who made some painfully accurate observations of democracy's pathologies, e.g., the near massacre of Mytilene. I'll need more time to think it all through, so it might not happen before the FAC is concluded, which I foresee will happen without much fuss; but I'll do my best. You're probably in a much better position to consider and address the concern, most likely by educating me better. ;) Willow 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That is probably the most generous reading I have ever read of Burke. That is part of what he is saying. Unfortunately, he goes on to say much more. First of all, he doesn't make the distinction between "the revolution could get bad" and "the revolution is bad" - he presents it as already violent. Second, he is not reserving judgment on the revolution - he is indicting the revolution, the revolutionaries, and those who support them in Britain (in fact, particularly British supporters - he fears a revolution in Britain). Apparently you haven't reached the "swinish multitude" section where he discusses the problems of the people and the greatness of the aristocracy? Not a meritocracy mind you, but an aristocracy. Also, he spends a considerable time condemning not just "abstract principles" but emerging science (Joseph Priestley is hacked away at, if you know where to look, as well as the French philosophes). When Burke complains about "philosophy", he is, in large part, complaining about the Enlightenment. While his arguments about stability have some force, they break down in the face of arguments like Wollstonecraft's (other people like Paine made them, too). One cannot always rely on precedence - there would be no progress in society. His vision of society is actually quite scary - always looking backward. Burke has been called the "father of modern conservatism", by the way, for outlining the defense of the status quo, prejudice (in the best sense - I think you know what I mean), and aristocracy. There is just very little to rescue from his book, in my opinion. That all being said, I have done everything I can to represent it accurately in the article. Obviously one paragraph can barely summarize 300 pages, but I tried to use the words that reappeared in most of the summaries I looked at. It is just that words like "aristocracy", while technically neutral, often conjure up negative associations. I really don't know what to do about that. (By the way, Burke is one of those thinkers who believes in retaining religion to control the masses.) Awadewit | talk 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that I should defend a "compassionate conservative"! ;) But I am rather infamous in my own way for seeing people through my overly sympathetic prism, refracting their failings and diffracting their goodness. Is it really 300 pages long? No wonder I was having trouble getting through it!

Still, I can't dismiss Burke until I've read him and understood him and his context. Nobody's perfect and there might a gem or two among the ashes. Even in my own life, I've felt abiding affection for people who despaired of civilization and scorned the benighted masses because they couldn't read Plato in the original. I myself used to feel an irrational twinge of prejudice against people who wear sunglasses on their head (weird, no?), and I suppose that others might fault me for wearing green eye shadow. ;)

Perhaps the best thing would be for me to Support the article right away, and then reserve my emendations for later, once I've had the chance to educate myself and think through the issues, especially my own. Thanks so much for the support at Catullus 5, by the way! :) I'm slogging through Catullus 2 right now, since someone nominated it prematurely as a Good Article. Willow 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X-ray crystallography

You don't ruffle my feathers as much as you think you do. Sometimes it's frustrating communicating with you, but I think you're simply try to write articles, same as I am doing. I simply have almost no time right now, even less this week than before, after a big job opportunity landed in my lap. I think the most important thing the article could use is being writen from a rigorous outline, and I started writing a usable one. If I can locate it, I will post that. The article suffers from a lack of overall structure through the development of the technique to the various uses going from least complex to most complex. KP Botany 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, KP. Your kind letter was wonderfully restorative for me; thank you! I look forward to working together with you more in the future and to benefiting from your insights. I'm all too aware of the haphazard organization and contents of X-ray crystallography :( but I really do want to make it better, no matter what my userboxes say. ;) Willow 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I know that you don't have to, but...if there was some way that you could reduce the number of orange tags down to one (it almost doesn't matter which one), I would be grateful. I'll sincerely try to address your concerns, regardless of what you decide to do about the tags, but they give me a pang every time I see them and make me feel despondent. :( Willow 11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfam again

Hi Willow, sorry for the delay in getting back to you Ive been busy with other things since I wrote to you last. Ive now generated our new family pages in the format you recommended. Thanks for all your helpful comments with that. So, I wanted to ask you how easy is it to (a) batch upload images to wikicommons (b) automate(?) the creation of the new pages? There are only 33 so for this Rfam release so I may just end up manually doing this. However, I would definately want to see how this can be automated for future releases where we have many more new families. I hope all is well with you :-) Jennifer_Rfm 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jennifer,

It's really great to hear from you again! I've been feeling a little blue lately, so getting a nice note from a friend was just the thing. :) Why don't you enable your Wikipedia e-mail address temporarily (under "my preferences" at the top) and I'll send you all the files and instructions on the automated upload? Thanks! I'll be rather busy today, though, so I might not be able to get back to you right away, but I'll do my best. I don't think you'll get a flood of unwanted e-mails in the meantime, so I wouldn't worry about that. ;)

Wikily yours, Willow 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great Willow, I will wait to hear from you. Thanks Jennifer_Rfm 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm ready; I'll send you the files and instructions now. Good luck and don't be afraid to ask any questions! :) Cheerio Willow 22:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MW

Thank you very much for efforts. I will of course accept British-English but my strong personal preference has always been dialect-neutral and still is. This would makes the copy entirely acceptable to the widest possible audience. With an atmosphere of cooperation and common purpose, and discussion over phrasing, the end result need not be stilted. The issue for me has never been that the article be in British-English but that American-English does not resonate well with the era and the topic. I do not mind at all editors posting in whatever flavour they favor, providing they cheerfully accept that consensus is for a dialect-free (or perhaps British-English) final version. We were very close indeed to consensus on this earlier in the week, but Kaldari reverted. Once again, thank you, You have no idea how much I appreciate this. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Roger! I didn't mean to suggest that I insisted on the article being BrEng, and not something else. How could I, after pleading so earnestly for gracious compromise among well-meaning friends? Anything that you all work out with Awadewit to everyone's satisfaction would be a thrice-welcome blessing to me. :) Willow 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catullus 2 Apology and Praise

First of all, sorry for prematurely nominating Catullus 2 as a good article. I personally did not think that there was much if anything else that could be added to the article and thought that you were done with it when I nominated. Boy, did you prove me wrong. So anyways, I apologize for any inconvenience that I caused you by nominating it and want to offer you congratulations on what a spectacular job you have done with it. Also, is there anything that I could do to help you out? I gave the article a quick copyedit and did notice that you don't have any poems in the parentheses for examples of Catullus berating corrupt politicians, but other than that it looks great. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sparrow,

Thank you for your kind note! I'm going to be glowing all day. :)

I would be very sorry if you thought I was upset at working on Catullus 2; it's such a beautiful poem, and I love sharing its beauty with others. I was just worried that the initial article didn't deserve being nominated, although I was a little flattered that you thought so. I was also feeling a little overwhelmed because I've blithely committed myself to too many articles, and am always neglecting some to work on others. :p But I'm so glad that I did work on Catullus 2; small and incomplete as it is and must remain, it's made me very happy, one of my favorite children.

If I can ask you to be patient, there's still a fair amount to be done, particularly on the referencing, and on the final section. Thank for reminding me about the political poems, too; I remember reading some pretty nasty ones, but I'll need to find them again. Meanwhile, other articles are calling me away... Willow 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that you are probably sick of Catullus 2, but I just noticed that it failed its GAC (or noticed earlier and forgot). Is there anything that I can do to help improve the article? If so, just leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of character

Hi Willow,

you haven't responded to my last posting, and that is out of character for you. Glancing at your conversations with others, it is readily seen that you always strive to keep or render contacts amicable. You always try hard, as is illustrated by the edit summary "trying hard to give thoughtful reply to Cleonis". Not responding to me is quite unlike you - I suppose I'm doing something very wrong.

Possibly you think my physics is out of whack. Sure, my angle on physics is unusual, but still: the views I endorse are all recognizably implications of standard physics. I've gathered my views from the physics literature that I consulted over the years. In that sense I consider myself a spokesman for standard physics.

Possibly you have decided that if you cease to respond to me I may cease to post comments on your talk page, I don't know. If you want me to stop posting on your talk page, then I'll stop. But I would appreciate it if you explicitly say so. --Cleonis | Talk 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, and the German word 'Trägheit' is 'die Trägheit' of course, not 'dem Trägheit', I wasn't paying attention.)

Hi Cleonis,

I'm very, very sorry that I haven't replied to you, but I'm sure that you see how much I need to think about what you've proposed. Right now, I'm about to pass Harold Pinter as a Good Article, but not without a final scrutiny; poor NYScholar has been giving the article his all and waiting patiently for me to finish my review. Besides that, I'm kind of under the gun at Catullus 2, which was nominated unexpectedly to be a Good Article. Then there's all the things I owe to Awadewit, Markus, Pete and the people at Citizendium, and all the things that I truly love, like Knitting, which are still not Featured Articles. Plus, my harvest is still coming in floods (I'm drying peppers and gorging myself on tomatoes as we speak), my real job and charity work are keeping me busy and I'm trying to study for my adult-education class tonight. So, I'm just sincerely busy; can you forgive me? I'll reply once I've had time to digest your arguments, really I will. But feel free to bug me if I don't get back to you in a month or so; I'm sometimes forgetful or get distracted. :P

Honestly, though, why would you want my help? I promise to give you the best review that I can, but you really should look for some expert, who could help you bring your ideas to publication. My opinion doesn't matter, except perhaps as a sounding board or sanity check prior to talking to a real expert. Habe nun, ach! Physiologie, Biochimie und leider auch Physik (theorie) studiert mit heissem Bemüh'n... ;)

As for my character — you might be surprised, as I always am, at the swirling maelstroms and consuming fires within. Human hearts have many chambers, and not all of them are bright, tidy and well-appointed. Let's agree to forgive each other our failings, Willow 20:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I seek to enlist your support because I think you are good at persuading people. The ideas I present have amply been been published, in the sense that they have been published by the experts whose work I read. In the past decades there have been new developments in the understanding of relativistic physics. Much of the driving force of these developments comes from the community of people who are working on the Einstein Papers. In the wake of the research for those volumes there has been a lot of contemplation of relativistic physics. I would love to see those new developments represented in wikipedia. Currently there is a lag of decades between developments in the understanding of relativistic physics and what is to be found in wikipedia articles. I can understand a lag of a couple of years, but I think that a lag of several decades is too long. Therefore I seek support to introduce those developments to wikipedia. I'm not looking for a sounding board, I'm confident that I've understood my sources correctly.

And hey, in this day and age, getting myself published is the easy part: In june 2006 I've set up a website of my own. (The hard part is to attract visitors to my website.) I've put the URL of my website on my own user page.

Well, I'll check back on your Archive 10 once a month or so for some time, so see if there are new developments. If not, then not. --Cleonis | Talk 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of the wait

Hey Cleonis,

The wait wasn't so bad, was it? ;)

But I think you seriously misjudge my gifts if you think that I'll be useful to you in persuading other people. A harp can be used to calculate square roots, but only with difficulty; so also I'm better at making peace than making sense or, even worse for me, making people believe what I want them to. I much prefer it if friends arrive at the same conclusion organically, helping each other to overcome ignorance, illuminating each other's path. If that doesn't happen in one field, oh well, there are other fields where concord and harmony will grow. It's not that I don't love the truth, don't want to distill its essence; it's just that I sometimes value my friendships more. Willow 10:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It may indeed be that you don't need my insights/perspective into your proposals, and if that's so, then you can stop reading now. But I will continue nonetheless; I'm a born quixotic. ;) But I think we have a lot of common ground, because we both accept the results of modern physics. Since your arguments are purely classical, I will stick to that ground as well. Willow 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common ground?

My comments here pertain to your earlier postings on my Talk page and to your Time dilation page.

The common ground we share begins with five accepted physics principles

A1) In flat space-time, light always travels at a constant speed c, regardless of the coordinate system in which the speed is measured.

A2) In an ideal, utterly empty space, space and time are homogeneous and isotropic. That is, all experiments will give the same results if they are translated or rotated as a whole.

A3) Coordinate systems aren't physical entities. What is "real", or at least invariant between coordinate systems, is a space-time distance between two events, which is equivalent to the proper time. In flat space, that distance is determined using the Minkowski metric, which itself follows from (A1) and (A2).

A4) Sundry effects follow from assuming the Minkowski metric and the invariance of space-time distances, such as length contraction, the breakdown of simultaneity, and the symmetric/asymmetric time dilation you depict so nicely on your time dilation page. I hope that we agree that these effects are the logical consequences of assuming (A1) and (A2); they’re not assumptions in their own right.

A5) Although coordinates are not real, spacetime itself is real, in that it can exchange energy and momentum with matter and fields, as described by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

To those five basic principles (which you mentioned), I would also add the following two, since I assume you agree with them

A6) By Noether's theorem, another consequence of (A2) is the conservation of energy and momentum, which may be written as a generally covariant divergence of a second-rank tensor, the energy-momentum density/current tensor

As an example, the energy-momentum tensor for a set of N point particles and an electric field tensor F^μν, would be

A7) Einstein's field equations, if correct, require the conservation of energy and momentum as a mathematical identity, specifically the Bianchi identities

where I've included the cosmological constant λ for the fullest possible generality. Therefore, it might be said that the conservation of energy-momentum is a property of space-time, and not “intrinsically” a property of the matter and fields that occupy the space-time. However, I hope that we agree that there is something intrinsic to a particle that corresponds to its invariant mass, i.e., that scales its contribution to the stress-energy tensor.

All these conclusions are standard physics, and I hope that we agree on (A1)-(A7). Willow 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow,

The scholar John Norton started one of his essays with the remark: "in any logical system there is great freedom to exchange axiom and theorem". The gist of a logical system is the way its elements are interconnected. It is common to select the invariance of the speed of light as an axiom, and combined with the principle of relativity of inertial motion derive theorems. My personal preference (which is a matter of taste) is to select the Minkowski metric as axiom and treat the invariance of the speed of light as a theorem of that axiom.

To me, the alpha and omega of special relativity is the Minkowski metric. My gut feeling is that asserting global validity of the Minkowski metric for a particular spacetime suffices to assert the isotropy and homogeneity of that spacetime. In classical physics for space the euclidean metric is asserted and for time uniformity is asserted (universally constant flow of time is asserted). I believe that the shift from classical physics to special relativity is to be understood as a shift from the euclidean metric to the Minkowski metric. I believe that is necessary and sufficient to understand the shift from classical physics to special relativity.

The Minkowski metric describes a property of spacetime, and from my point of view the Lorentz invariance of the speed of light is on equal par with, say, relativity of simultaneity, as being a downstream consequence of the physics that is described by the Minkowski metric.

Classical simultaneity does not apply in relativistic context, but of course the concept of simultaneity is by no means broken down; classical simultaneity is replaced with Minkowski simultaneity, which is defined just as unambigouously as classical simultaneity: for every particular Lorentz frame there is one and only one plane of simultaneity that is the proper plane of simultaneity for that particular Lorentz frame.

It goes without saying that coordinate systems aren't physical entities. To me that assertion is so glaringly obvious that I've never considered actually asserting it. I just assume that everyone agrees that sets of spacetime coordinates are as inter-exchangable as the Celsius and Fahrenheit temperature scales.

I think we use the very same elements, and the same interconnections (in that sense we endorse the very same theoretical framework) but I seem to use a different hierarchy in how I arrange the elements. --Cleonis | Talk 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We're in perfect agreement then. :) I've heard other people espouse your approach of assuming the Minlowski metric first and deriving everything else in special relativity from that; de gustibus nostris nihil disputandum est. Personally, I like the experimental approach, as being perhaps more practical; but the symmetry arguments are pretty cool, too. Your approach has the advantage of tying in with (A5), namely, that spacetime (which may be represented by its metric) is a physical entity. The only fly in the ointment is that the Minkowski metric is found nowhere in the real world; it's — utopian. ;) Space-time is always slightly curved (and dynamic) on cosmological scales, due to the mundane fact that this world is not a perfect vacuum. I remember hearing about a nifty result of Einstein's that the geodesic equation of motion (in the non-relativistic limit, Newton's first law) results from the demand that the curvature tensor field be continuous. Flying off, Willow 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncommon ground?

I'm not exactly clear where we differ, but here are a few points that occurred to me. Again, I'm acting only as a sounding board, to suggest areas of further thinking for you. If that's not helpful for you, then please feel free to ignore the following.

B1) You proposed that the inertia of a particle might change from place to place in the universe. To me, that seems inconsistent with the non-divergence of the stress-energy tensor, which — as shown above — is an intrinsic property of space-time, if we accept the Einstein field equations. If you'd like to discuss their foundational principles, we can, but those principles are pretty plausible. On the experimental side, we observe that spectral lines are the same, even from very distant stars; that suggests that the spatial variations in inertia must occur over extremely large distances, if at all.

B2) Your thought-experiment of an inertial guidance system seems incorrect in curved space-time. You proposed that if ships 1 and 2 were initially co-moving next to each other and if ship 2 remained unaccelerated, then ship 1 could always determine its absolute position and velocity relative to ship 2, if it monitored its own accelerations very accurately. That is incorrect if both ships never feel an acceleration, but nevertheless enter an inhomogeneous gravitational field, in which they free-fall differently. Without looking "outside", ship 1 would assume that it was still next to ship 2, since it had felt no acceleration; yet it might end up light-years away. It's similar to how the space between galaxies has been increasing gradually; two galaxies can be 40 billion light years away from one another, although the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and nothing can move faster than light.

B3) You seem to lay a lot of emphasis on the force involved in sending clocks between the ships of your fleet, which I don't understand. Aside from the fact that the concepts of energy and momentum are usually preferred over that of force in modern physics, the mass of the shuttling clock seems irrelevant; you could just as well use a massless photon, no?

B4) For the same reason, I don't understand the sense of "isotropy of inertia" and "isotropy of light". As I understand it, the prevailing hypothesis is that all experiments behave the same in empty space when they're rotated or translated, due to the homogeneity and isotropy of empty space itself, not because of any peculiar property of light or mass. This more general hypothesis seems likely, since the mass itself depends on the energy from different components, e.g., the different masses of isotopes due to their nuclear binding energies.

Hoping that this helps you understand my impressions of your proposals, Willow 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, as far as we know the invariant mass of particles is not dependent on location in the universe. In that sense of the word 'inertia' the inertia of particles is the same everywhere in the universe. I'm a bit puzzled as to what point of view you ascribe to me. What I can say is that I expect the inertia of particles to be the same everywhere in the universe. I agree of course that a theory in which the inertia of particles is different from place to place can't be reconciled with general relativity.

<addendum> 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In a posting now in your Talk page archive 10 I employed a counterfactual thought experiment; a 'what if' scenario. I described an 'anomalous pocket of spacetime', just for the purpose of illustrating something, whithout expectation that such an anomaly can exist at all. I used the word 'anomalous' to express that such a "misbehaving" pocket of spacetime would be an anomaly according to the accepted theories of space and time.

</addendum> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleonis (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the thought demonstration involving inertial guidance systems now in your Talk page archive 10 only applies in Minkowski spacetime, and not in curved spacetime. Therefore I meticulously specified that the thought demonstration takes place so far away from celestial bodies that curvature of spacetime is negligable. Awareness of the consequences of spacetime curvature is crucial: in order to state the thought demonstration properly, I specified that it is situated in spacetime with negligable curvature.

Regarding the thought demonstration in my time dilation page

The force that the spaceships use in expelling the miniclocks is not important in itself. The only important aspect is that the miniclocks have identical speeds with respect to the fleet, in opposite directions. Given the isotropy of inertia, expelling the miniclocks with identical force is a way of ensuring their speed relative to the fleet is identical. Mentioning equal force is exerted calls upon Newton's third law: imparting equal force implies imparting equal momentum.

It could also have been formulated in terms of imparting equal kinetic energy to all miniclocks. Now that you have drawn my attention to it, I will look into a rewrite of that section.

Indeed, when I use the expressions 'isotropy of inertia' and 'isotropy of the speed of light' I am in fact asserting the isotropy and homogeneity of spacetime. I use those expressions interexchangably, but now that you have drawn my attention to it, I can look into elaborating that section, explicitly grouping everything under the overarching concept of isotropy and homogeneity of spacetime.

Overall I think there isn't really any uncommon ground between us.

I'm pleased that you have alotted some time to me. I'll take a break now, I'll check your talk page again in a week or so. --Cleonis | Talk 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though we're in complete agreement about our principles; yeay! :) Our discrepancies (B1)-(B4) seem to have been just misapprehensions or a different choice of emphasis, wouldn't you agree? Indeed, from the smatterings I know, it doesn't seem as though you differ from mainstream physics in any meaningful (i.e., experimentally detectable) way. Your presentation is somewhat different, with your emphasis on flat spacetime (which is OK if you're talking only about special relativity) and heavy use of the word "inertia", when you're actually talking about the properties of spacetime. I'm a little at a loss to say anything more except good luck to you! :) Willow 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Large posting has been moved to a subpage of WillowW's user page (link can be added when database is updated)

[edit] Newbie advice

Thanks for the note on the director vote page! It would be great if I could ask you questions once in a while. I'm working on transcription factor and thinking about working on transcription (genetics). I'll let you know when I get them to a decent state and ask for your advice. It would be greatly appreciated!

And no, Forluvoft is simply short for "For the love of tea". Every time I explain it to someone, I get a disappointed "oh".  ;) Forluvoft 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's great! :) I'm just chagrined for not having parsed it straight away; but then again, although I like tea and even grow some myself, I'm more of a coffee hound. :)

I'll be happy to answer any question you have, if I can, and you should never feel shy about asking, although I'm generally a little clueless. I think Wikipedia really needs your help on gene regulation and all that. For one thing, have you noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the SAGA complex? I'm sure that you'll find many other lapses although, surprisingly, there's already an article about histone deacetylases. Talk to you soon, Willow 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming soon

Hi Willow,

to wrap things up I've written an exposition of looking at theories of physics from the point of view of symmetries. Most if not all of it you already know, but I like being complete. I'll soon post it here on your talk page. I'm announcing this, for it's a bit of a big posting: 9200 characters, well in excess of my previous largest posting of 6700 characters. The last section will be titled: 'Overview, the key concepts'. If need be you can skip the bulk and read only the overview section.

By the way: I happened to notice that a webpage of a research group affiliated to Canterbury University of New Zealand has used an animation I manufactured on the introducing page of their ringlaser website. (Unfortunately, the animation has been copied without giving due credit. I'll have to addres that.) Anyway, that webpage is an example of usage of the expression 'inertial space'. A ring laser interferometer measures rotation with respect to inertial space. --Cleonis | Talk 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleonis,

Perhaps it would be better if you posted it to a sub-page such as User:Willow/Cleonis_Symmetries? That might make it easier for others to navigate this page.

Just to clarify, what do you want me to do once I've read it? Do you want me to critique/review it, or point out where your arguments could be clarified or worded better? Or do you want me to just have it?

Congratulations on your animation getting broader exposure! The Sagnac effect seems neat — much less sloppy than Newton's bucket. ;) Someday I'll have to ask you how to make those animations. Talk to you soon, Willow 02:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow,

Initially I had posted the symmetries discussion on this talk page, but I've moved it to the location that you proposed. Ultimately, I seek to influence how in wikipedia relativistic physics is introduced to novices. The philosophical question is: what is the very essence? What is the minimum to convey to a novice? Some people mention the socalled 'fictitious forces' in conjunction with general relativity. I think doing so is a disservice to novices.

I use primitive means to create my animations. My methods are labour-intensive, but there's little learning curve to negotiate. --Cleonis | Talk 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have time for a peer review?

Hey there Willow. I know you're crazy busy, but I just got done reconstructing the article on Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe. It's in a semi-decent shape now, and I wonder if you'd be willing to offer a peer review? If you review it, I'll be your best friend forever and ever. Thanks in advance! – Scartol · Talk 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Scartol,

I have been feeling a little swamped lately. ;) But your appeal struck my sweeter side and I couldn't possibly say "No", especially given your promise of undying friendship. :) Will you really not mind it if I gush lyrically and deliriously for hours on end? Swaying and swayed, Willow 01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, best friend in the world – You added a sentence in the legacy section of Chinua Achebe about how the Nobel committee has snubbed other deserving people. Awadewit said it felt out of place, and I wonder how you'd feel if we removed it. (I think it gives good context, but it's a bit distracting.) – Scartol · Talk 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi hi Scartol!

As I wrote over at the peer review, the sentence isn't that important to me, and you both should feel as free as the wind to change it or remove it. But I've got to go back to work tonight, late as it is; truly, there's no rest for the wicked, but at least there's lots of good food. :) If the weather holds past this harvest moon, I may even eat handfuls of fresh raspberries in November, which would be a first for me and one-tenth of 100 dents. ;) Willow 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Best buddy: Mr. Achebe is now up for FA consideration. If you have a moment, perhaps you'd care to add your two cents? Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Help me, Obi-Wan. It's all happening again. Care to comment? – Scartol · Talk 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested (and I agree) that we not get dragged into another huge argument. Sorry for the confusion. – Scartol · Talk 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fulfilling promise

I haven't forgotten my promise to read X-ray crystallography. See my lengthening review here. If you want to move it, just let me know. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What nice crystals! :) Thanks for looking at the article, which I fear is more floury than flowery. Once you've had a chance to digest its wholesome nutrition, I would really appreciate your advice on how to make it better organized. This has been a kind of Jackson Pollock article, where I've just scurried to throw things into it without stopping to consider the overall architecture and how to optimize the flow for easy reading. :( Hoping that you're feeling better and that you've found your voice again, Willow 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A project we might be interested in

I know that we both have a million things to do, so, really what's one more? I stumbled across the Encyclopédie page today. I could not believe its abysmal state. Perhaps we could work on it together sometime in the future? Like a year from now? :) Awadewit | talk 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you want to start working on Joseph Johnson again? Perhaps we could aim for FA by December or January? I just have that one last book to read. The article really just needs some reorganizing and polishing, I think. Awadewit | talk 12:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like that very much! :) I've missed our working together, although that's mostly due to my flighty ways, flickering around like the Willow Wisp. I have notes prepared on JJ, on things I wanted to add, but I agree that there's not that much remaining, although there's much outstanding, thanks to you. ;)

Unfortunately, there's really no rest for the wicked right now. The frost has held off for a wonderfully long time, and I've reaped more than I ever imagined when I planted everything two weeks too late in spring-time. But the cold is coming, I feel it; so I'm harvesting the more tender plants and preserving them in various ways. Today it's the basil (ocimum basilicum), which I'm turning into pesto and other things. I only have a few dozen plants, but it takes a long time to pluck the leaves from even one plant and you need to work the leaves on the same day as they're harvested. So don't be surprised if you don't hear from me for a little while; my sleeping hours will be few, but I'll dream of thoughtful dinners at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard. :) Willow 08:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful. Let me know when you want to take up JJ again. I may poke at it occasionally. Awadewit | talk 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I finished up the review of x-ray crystallography. Feel free to post it wherever is most useful. Awadewit | talk 09:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, I have nominated the Wollstonecraft articles for a featured topic. Awadewit | talk 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does this graph mean?

What do you think this graph means, if it is accurate?--Filll 14:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll! :)

I really need to sleep, but maybe it's a good sign? The rate of editing corresponds to the rate of people visiting multiplied by the probability that they find something they want to fix. I believe that there's some data showing that the former is still increasing; hence, the latter is decreasing. Ideally, one could deconvolve the two, perhaps? It might be nice to see the latter function in isolation.

One explanation might be that the articles are improving to the state where there's nothing obviously wrong to most viewers? Of course, there are other schenarios/mechanisms, such as dwindling motivation. Now I really have to sleep! 3) Willow 08:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that in this "schenario" you really did need some sleep :) . I found a page or two of discussion about this and other graphs here on a sandbox page. Very interesting. Just click on the links in the blog article.--Filll 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Justitia et pax osculatae sunt.

I don't suppose the AE/BE debate will ever quite blow over, but may I take advantage of the present lull to apologise for riding roughshod over your sincere and wise, in fact Gandalfian and Boutros-Boutros-Ghalian, mediation initatives in the matter. I have been feeling a bit guilty ever since.qp10qp 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear, sweet qp10qp, please don't feel guilty! The whole point was to spare us all unhappiness, no? If you starting feeling bad, then I as your friend will start feeling bad, and then it can go only downhill from there. ;) Let's choose the positive feedback pathway, you and I, shall we? Nay, I'll brook no refusal; I like you too well and esteem you too highly for anything less. :)

We can start by laughing at ourselves and reconciling ourselves with warmest affection, no? I don't feel the least bit run over, roughshod or otherwise; re-reading what I wrote, I couldn't help but roll my eyes and think, "I'm actually as weird as I think I am." Although my exhortations to peace were sincere indeed, I don't think they were very wise; I think Awadewit was wiser and more practical in holding out for a reasoned solution through arguments pro and con. My only concern was to protect a dearer treasure, the gentle cobweb of friendships and respect among Wikipedians, a cobweb that gleams with magical pearls. Willow 21:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So far, no conclusion has been reached, but I think Roger Davies still respects all of us. He has contributed at Mary Wollstonecraft and is going to "translate" Jane Austen, when Simmaren and I are finished. Perhaps another day the discussion can continue. See here for interesting comments from the BE side. Awadewit | talk 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true about Roger and, indeed, I hope for all parties in the debate. For my part, I'm really sorry for being so clumsy in trying to conjure a resolution, and I particularly hope that you, Awadewit, forgive me for that. I know that you understand why I followed that route, being heart-sick; I couldn't really have done otherwise, except by being silent. Willow 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think there is no need for apologies. Perhaps the rhetoric got a little intense at times, but I think we all followed our own ethical and philosophical beliefs, and since these are well-thought out systems, what more can you ask? Awadewit | talk 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing indeed, although I can't claim that my own system is well thought-out. ;) BTW, thank you so much for the nice review of X-ray crystallography! :) Willow 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good luck

As requested. Tim Vickers 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! The test turned out very well, perhaps thanks to your good wishes. :) I got a perfect score, my first ever in this class — although I didn't really deserve it; the grading was overly generous in a few places. Another young woman who sits kitty-corner from me also got a perfect score (as she always does) and seemed also embarrassed about being praised in front of the class. I like her; she seems sweet-natured and so smart and I've thought of asking her whether she wanted to study together; but we're both a little shy and I imagine too busy and disorganized to find the time. :( Oh well, Willow 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme stub

That looks great! A long-held dream of mine was to have every single type of enzyme given the article they so rightly deserve. Tim Vickers 22:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then something wonderful is about to happen. :) Your friend, Willow 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

“

I live not in dreams but in contemplation of a reality that is perhaps the future. — Rainer Maria Rilke

”

Yes you may want to cutback on the number of external links. Perhaps three or four max ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but each link has its champions and provides its own type of information. I would be in favor of keeping them all, rather than having to make a choice, but we can decide that later. Would you mind giving your reasoning? We should probably have an open discussion at WP:MCB about it. But since the external links are in a template, it will be easy to modify all the enzyme pages in tandem. Willow 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Keep it up. --Arcadian 02:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Arcadian! :) I'm getting tired, though, and my kitties need to be fed, so I'm going to have to stop soon...Any advice would be very welcome! :) Willow 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ping!

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tinkle tinkle! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Boing! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I love your staggered sound effects; they remind me of my kitties knocking things down the stairs; this morning, it was the crumpled foil from a chocolate bar. They're great hunters, you know, at least they think so. ;) Willow 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daima

Hi again. I was browsing through your user page, for want of anything better to do, and noticed a red link in the list of articles you'd created. It turns out that while you created this article in February, it was "speedy deleted" only last week -- not exactly what I would call "speedy". I was a little puzzled as to how an article could sit harmlessly for eight months and then suddenly be declared deletable, and surprised that one of your articles could end up like that, though having been shown the text of the article, it admittedly doesn't amount to much, and I guess we can't argue with the administrators. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't already aware of this – Gurch 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Q! But it's probably better if that article stays deleted for now. I made it as part of a well-meaning but silly (and I fear misguided) game to get Worldtraveller out of his blue funk about Wikipedia. I felt pretty awful for having caused him so much grief around Valentine's Day over the Wikipedia is failing essay and had thought perhaps we might do something fun and productive together to smooth things over, something to remind him of why he joined Wikipedia and to show that I wasn't a Really Bad Person. The game was to make articles for as many articles as possible from the Hotlist of missing encyclopedic articles, which was then on "D". The "Daima" article was the hardest of all to write, and I was pretty sure that the Tashkent artist was not the intended "Daima" in the Hotlist, but I couldn't find anything else, so I did the best I could; but the article was never very good. :( And he left anyway. Oh well, live and unlearn, Willow 11:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)