User talk:WillowW/Archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 awadewit interview 2 lc names 3 RfA 4 Enzyme Blitz 5 Admin? 6 JP 7 Return of the Willow? 8 WikiProject Literature proposal 9 Poliomyelitis 10 A wee favor 11 Co-nom? 12 rfa 13 Co-Nom + RFA formating 14 JJ 15 Fascinating reductase 16 Peer review list 17 Why thank you, my friend! 18 Long time no see 19 ‎Formimidoyltetrahydrofolate cyclodeaminase 20 I shall never stop bugging you for peer reviews 21 Harriet Tubman 22 A "gift" 23 History of science 24 Non-coding RNA 25 New pages 26 PBB request 27 As quiet as mice 28 Peer review request 29 Lyases 30 Enzymes 31 Edit summaries 32 DIY conversion kit 33 Xanthan lyase 34 VK mention 35 Thanks for your vote 36 ArbCom elections 37 Cheers 38 Leibniz material 39 Funny 40 New pages 41 Keep up the good woork 42 Thanks 43 Diaminohydroxyphosphoribosylaminopyrimidine deaminase 44 Are you done yet?

[edit] awadewit interview

Hi there WillowW, Ha! I'd like to think I don't have much in common with the radio presenters I think you are referring to - Australia does have it's share of dodgy, conniving, unethical and corrupt shock-jocks doesn't it...

Regarding the awadewit interview itself, it is looking to go live in two ep's time. We were surprisingly organised and managed to get another panel episode in the can. Because the panel discussions are about the news they are more time-specific and have preference over the interview episodes which do not go out of date nearly so quickly. That being said, if you asked awadewit herself for a copy of the show she might send it to you. it's up to her on that one. Otherwise, it's looking to go live in about a fortnight... sorry.

I'm glad to hear you're interested though. It's very exciting to know someone is interested in one's work. Cheers,

Witty Lama 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Witty llama and welcome to my Talk page! :)

Thanks for your great note; I was so happy to get it before I left for work. :) I understand about the episode timing, and it totally makes sense; it's just that I've always been a bad one for waiting, ummm, like waiting a few hours for your reply. ;) But I don't think I'll ask Awadewit herself for the episode; that would be too much like cheating. Tenterhooks or no, the wait draws out the exquisite pleasure/pain of anticipation, and I'm sure a fortnight will pass quickly. BTW, keep up the good work! I love listening to your show, and you seem really cool. :) Willow 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lc names

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter explains how to do this. Tim Vickers 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter, I'm lagging so far behind that this will be the work of years to deal with all the entries! Tim Vickers 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, you and me both! But it will be years well-spent, no? :) I'm also hoping that, if we "seed" respectable but incomplete articles, others will appear out of the woodwork to fill them in — maybe even some of the original researchers of the enzymes. That's my dream, anyway. It would only take 40 smart and devoted students at 100 universities, and they'd be all done instanter. Not too much to dream of, no? :) Willow 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

It's no good, they don't trust me. You'll have to let me in on the secret of writing articles, instead. And stop calling me Q! – Gurch 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that you didn't like "Q"! I was sentimentally attached to that name, since that's how I first came to know you, and I kind of liked the sound of "Q" over "Gurch". But I'll switch over now.

I'm also really sorry about your thorny RfA, although you can take comfort that a clear majority of people wanted you and praised you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I wouldn't let the Opposes bother me or worry about the coming onslaught of vandals; just be serene, like a leaf floating down the stream of life. The size of Wikipedia is such that no one person, or even a dedicated team of people, can affect it for good or ill; even if anonymous vandals create 40,000 nonsense pages, that's only 2% of Wikipedia, no? And somebody will cope with it, it doesn't have to be you; and if they don't. oh well, the excellent articles aren't affected by having lame articles lurking in the database.

So, on to writing good articles! :) What do you like, what do you care about? In my case, I ask, what do my friends care about? and I try to write articles that would delight them. My advice would be to avoid likely contentious topics, such as Ronald Reagan or Wikipedia itself; they can be the La Brea Tar Pits of article writing. ;) Instead, why not choose your favorite pasttime or author or flower or somesuch? Some fine topic where you can make your infinitesimal contribution to the ocean of Wikipedia. :) Willow 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, another alternative is to write about the place you live - we're all experts on our localities! Tim Vickers 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme Blitz

Hi Willow: I have been working on Speedies on New Pages tonight, and your name comes up so often that I keep losing my place. Are you working on setting a record for the most new (and not speedied) articles in a day? Bielle 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bielle! It's not quite like that; it's not for the record, but meant as a nice present for a dreamy friend. :) I'm having fun, too! Willow 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. It's only a little further, and then I can rest. I think I'll have sweet dreams myself tonight, full of impish dreams... ;) Willow 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What's Greek for "blitz"? (That's just to show you that some people read the edit summaries, words from old hymns and all.) Bielle 03:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, it's αστεροπη (lightning), at least in Homer. They also used to say πυρ (fire), but I like the former word better. Hoping you like etymologies, Willow 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I love etymologies, but I didn't ever study Greek: Latin, French, Russian, yes, but not Greek. Even in my day, which is somewhere just this side of the Jurassic Era, classical Greek was seldom taught outside of universities and church schools, and modern Greek was only what the newcomers in the souvlaki place spoke. Thanks for the vocabulary update. Bielle 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bielle, I wish that I'd learned Russian! I love Russian short stories, especially those of Chekov, although admittedly Смерть Ивана Ильича is maybe my favorite. Greek is a beautiful language, I can totally recommend learning it. I don't regret the time I spent learning it one bit; I probably like it better than all my other languages combined. It's so expressive and euphonious; words roll off the tongue like a stream running down a hillside.  :) And of course, it's the language of Sappho and Homer.

As an aside, there will likely be other blitzes of enzymes in the future, so we should be prepared with a phrase to describe them. How about ενζυμοισι επιφακάζει? It means "it's raining enzymes (on us)", in the sense of "it's raining cats and dogs". Hoping you like it and hoping to see more of you around, Willow 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While I am humbly grateful for the invitation, you won't see me on any science articles. I can't even pronounce most of what you write. I am sometimes on the RefDesk Humanities, but even there, I am a reader more than a writer. As for learning Greek, I think I'd have to be living in the environment to pick up anything useful My brain just doesn't operate as fluidly the older I get, no matter how many challenges I give it. A friend who is an entreprenuer and inventor, with many patents to his credit, said that he noticed a quite remarkable slowing of his thought processes starting from about age 55, and now, at about 65, he claims his son can run rings around him. He exaggerates a bit, but I know what of he speaks. I might be able to tackle another romance language, but Greek will likely stay Greek to me. I am glad to have met a potential translator in you, however, so thank you. Bielle 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Have been new page patrolling tonight and I seriously CANNOT BELIEVE (sorry for shouting) the rate you are churning these out. Are you some kind of bot, or what? Such a pleasure to see new pages that actually add to Wikipedia, rather than being of the "Brad wilkins is gay and has a small wiener" variety. And bravo for the edit summaries too. Keep up the good work! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kim and welcome to my Talk page! :) It's really heartening and cheery to get such nice letters, and to make new friends! :) I know what you mean about those other articles, though. :( I recently looked at the newpage creation page because of the RfA for Gurch and I was shocked to see all the bad articles there. I think you all who are cleaning all that up are the real heroes. :) Oh well, off to work again, hi ho, hi ho, ;) Willow 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

I'm sure you've been asked before Willow, but would you be interested in becoming an admin? The extra tools are quite useful. Tim Vickers 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really touched that you ask, Tim! I have indeed been asked before by several friends here, and I'm tempted now more than ever...but I can't. Partly that's because of my misgivings about my using the tools wisely and about my inability to remember the rules, policies and abbreviations of Wikipedia, which seem sine qua non parts of being an admin. But there are other, deeper reasons. This is not who I am and how I relate to people; I believe that I'm much, much better at being a quiet, serene voice than in carrying power. You also might be able to see that my chaotic edits are really a flock of doves carrying messages across a dark river, and I would be loath to take time away from them. Like Penelope, I'm weaving a tapestry that no living eye will see, but which I think will be beautiful someday. :) Thank you again; even if I wander off now and then, you are never far from my thoughts Willow 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Power should be applied with modesty and care, those who seek power are those least able to use it. Tim Vickers 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JP

Thanks for painstakingly reading JP! I do have two concerns over additions you made.

• 1) I don't think we can discuss Lavoisier's experiments in terms of a "law of conservation of mass" since such a thing wasn't formulated yet. I want the language of the article to reflect the understanding of the participants as much as possible, not a retrospective understanding.
• 2) Priestley's philosophical beliefs, as summarized here, may resemble other people's, but I don't think that gives us as editors the right to dispute scholars' claims about them. I would like to remove the part you added comparing Priestley to Leibniz. I read an 80-page article that explains what is similar and different between Priestley and Leibniz, but there just wasn't room for that material in the article.

Thanks! Awadewit | talk 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Willow:

Upon seeing your edits to Joseph Priestley, I came over here to commend your excellent contributions to this FA-to-be—both your polishing and clarifying some language and your substantive additions. I see that Awadewit beat me over here and expressed some concerns about the latter. Lavoisier's anticipation of the law of conservation of mass is implicit in his approach to chemistry. I believe that, years ago, I read some secondary authority on the history of chemistry that supports this conclusion, but I cannot easily lay my hands on a citation. It is an important contribution to the article because it underscores the point that Priestley clung to the old ways of natural philosophy while others, toiling in the same vineyard at the same time, were creating the future of science (although today, Lavoisier's coloric doesn't sound much more modern than phlogiston). As for Leibniz, it is certainly important to correct the statement that Priestley was "the first" if he wasn't, and then pointing to a predecessor is almost mandatory. Your Leibniz citation does need some fixing, though, and the Wikisource link is dead. Thanks again for your excellent contributions! Finell (Talk) 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Finell, and welcome to my Talk page! :) Willow 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Awadewit,

Whatever you decide to do is fine with me, but please consider the following counterpoints ;) Willow 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• (organum) Heaven knows I'm no historian of science, but I'm pretty sure that Lavoisier himself formulated the law of conservation of mass and that's why he was so busy weighing his reactants and products. I don't believe that it's a retroactive interpretation of Lavoisier's science, although I might be mistaken. We should ask someone more expert like Ragesoss whether that's an accurate depiction of the historical science and whether Priestley ever explicitly rejected that conservation law. Willow 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we should ask him because I know that Priestley accepted parts of Lavoisier's theory but not others. Ragesoss would be better equipped than I to make that distinction. I am just absolutely paranoid about scientific mistakes creeping into the article. You understand. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at Cohen's Revolution in Science right now and it states that "The Chemical Revolution made use of a general principle known as 'conservation of mass', or 'conservation of matter', which explains that in a chemical reaction the total mass (or weight) of all the reacting substances must be identically equal to the total mass (or weight) of all the product substances. This principle, now basic to all sciences, was not then essential to chemical theory." (231) - See why I'm a bit confused? :) Awadewit | talk 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what scholarly sources I can dig up, but you'll have to patient with me until I can go to the library. :) As far as I can tell, the quote above is not inconsistent with the idea that Lavoisier enunciated the law of conservation of mass during that Chemical Revolution, and that was a key point distinguishing him from Priestley. Let's see! :) Willow 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the Cohen sentences are a bit vague - was the law a "law" during chemical revolution or only afterwards? Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It was probably a principle for Lavoisier, something from which he could argue (not for which), even if it hadn't been established experimentally. I'm guessing that, for Priestley, it was more like a hypothesis that needed more experimental testing before it could be accepted. If that's so, Priestley's approach was scientifically more correct; although the "law" is accepted now (with some amendments due to special relativity), principles need to be established experimentally, not merely asserted. Willow 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the Lavoisier front, but I'm pretty sure that is not quite accurate on the Priestly front. Priestley did not think of natural philosophy as a series of hypotheses that needed to be tested. I had this lovely quote describing his experimental method, but it had to go. The scholarly description of Priestley has conceiving of one unified theory is supposed to hint at the idea that he didn't follow the scientific method, as is the repetitive use of the term "natural philosopher". Priestley was not a scientist in the modern sense. It is the word "law" that is really bothering me in the "law of the conservation of mass" - when was this word first used? When was it even first proposed? Could it have been proposed until the "chemical revolution" was accepted which would have been a few years at least? Perhaps we could say something like "eventually led to the formulation and acceptance of the law of the conservation of mass"? Awadewit | talk 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• (discantus) I understand your point of view, but I think we should also recognize that even the best scholar can overlook something and we needn't repeat their mistakes, if another source can do better. Thus, if another scholar purports that Leibniz espoused the same principles in 1673 (namely, that human actions and thoughts are completely determined, and yet one can hold to a traditional Christianity) and can point to an critically edited text where it says so explicitly, then it seems, well, odd to claim that Priestley was the first to espouse those beliefs, don't you think? I might be missing something about what Priestley was arguing for; but if so, maybe we should clarify those arguments, since others might fall into the same misapprehension. You can remove the sentence if you'd like, but I'd like to clarify the issues, at least for myself. Regardless of whether Leibniz is included or not, it's a beautiful article. :) Willow 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also remember that this article contains only the briefest summary of Priestley's beliefs and necessarily leaves out points - it is meant to be a general introduction. Also, as you are well aware, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Even if it is true that Leibniz said the same thing earlier (although I don't think this is actually true, from what I have read), we don't have a source that says "Leibniz said this before Priestley". Combining these two sources is original research. I cannot emphasize enough how complex and intricate Priestley's philosophical beliefs are - scholars don't even agree on what they say nor do they agree if his beliefs are a system or not (remember he wrote dozens of works). If you want to start unraveling Priestley's beliefs, read the McEvoy and McGuire article entitled "God and Nature". Perhaps we could read through it together and work on that section? I found it the hardest of all of the sections to write. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have two desiderata: first,to clarify Priestley's position and second, to determine whether Leibniz held the same at an earlier date. If we agree to restrict our attention to the two points mentioned in the article: (a) human behaviour is completely determined by physical laws; and (b) that fact is not inconsistent with traditional Christianity, then I believe that we can find scholarly sources showing that both Leibniz and Priestley believed both points. If that's accepted, it doesn't seem extraordinary to conclude that Leibniz espoused that position before Priestley, since the former died before the latter was born. We should therefore seek scholarly sources that shed light on the two men's beliefs; in the meantime, I would like to coyly suggest that you read the charming Leibniz dialog that I think Priestley would've enjoyed as well. It's a little scholastic at times, but winsome as well. The ending has the traditional Christianity and the reconciliation of faith and reason, whereas the bulk of the dialog is concerned with justifying damnation while holding that all human actions and thoughts result from physical laws. (Short answer: it's a self-inflicted punishment; the damned make themselves unhappy, no one does it to them.)

Unfortunately, Priestley had more than one position throughout his life (as many of us do!) So why don't we stick with the positions he outlined in the 1770s and 1780s - the ones I discuss in the "Materialist philosopher" section. Priestley was not always a materialist and was not a complete materialist, evidenced by one of the paragraphs in that section which describes his ideas of the soul - it is made of a divine substance that humans cannot access. By the way, Priestley was a monist of sorts - a position he derived from Leibniz, as I understand it, but I felt that it would be even more difficult to explain than the concepts already in the article. :) Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If on the other hand the article wishes to discuss something more complex than the two points above, then we should clarify what those points are and what Priestley believed. If he wasn't consistent in his beliefs, or hadn't thought them through, then perhaps we need not mention them so prominently? Just a thought, Willow 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article used to outline each change in Priestley's theological beliefs, but other editors felt this was a bit tiresome. It is not to me, but apparently not everyone is enthralled by obscure discussions of theology. The article followed him from Calvinism to Arianism to Socinianism to Unitarianism. Along with these changes in theology went changes in philosophy, obviously (actually, I think I'm missing one step there). The question about consistency is tricky. As the "Legacy" section points out, some scholars have argued that Priestley's works are a coherent system while others have argued that they are not - which position should the article take? The article leans towards "system" since most of the scholarship says that, but there is no agreement on that front. Frankly, I don't think anyone wants to read the 150 books to find out! :) Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Willow, I hope I haven't said anything to offend you. You know my gruff, rationalistic ways can get me in trouble sometimes. :) Awadewit | talk 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to Laugh Out Loud (LOL)! :) I haven't seen the worrisome passage yet, and our human hearts are labyrinthine no doubt, but I can't imagine a world in which you would say anything that had the power to offend me. We like each other, no? Besides, I'm really hard to offend; I do get angry, but it's very rare — I'm much more likely to get weepy and self-critical or to protest my innocence or something like that. Let's see what our little molehill is about...Willow 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...ok, there's absolutely no offence, as I thought. I find myself really moved, though, by Finell's sticking up for me, even if it was over a misapprehension; I don't even stick up for me. I'd like to be warm and delicate in my reply over there, so this might take a while; I should probably brew some coffee first! ;) I have to smile at myself; I've always dreamed of being in fairy-tales, and now I'm Dulcinea waving with a handkerchief from the tower window to the jousters defending my honour below. "Gracious lord and lady, I pray you, do not contend over one so unworthy as I." ;) Willow 10:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Willow, I've been looking over some Leibniz material and I just don't think we can make this comparison, especially when we are citing to primary sources. Interpreting what philosophers mean is notoriously difficult and I don't want to put the article in the position of relying only on primary sources for the Leibniz claim. We need some sort of secondary source to back that up. I haven't seen one yet. I don't think that Leibniz and Priestley were really looking at the world the same way, either, since Priestley's philosophical system was so science-based. Let me know what you think about removing that sentence. I know that you were concerned about the article misrepresenting Priestley's views. When I wrote those sections, I tended to think of them as the "planetary model of the atom"-version of Priestley's philosophy. The reader would get the basic gist of Priestley's philosophy, but some elements would inevitably get lost or perhaps even be slightly incorrect because of a lack of nuance. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot here for me to think about, and I'll definitely think and read more about Leibniz and Priestley. One initial reaction that came up for me was that it's a little unfair to imagine that Leibniz was less scientific than Priestley. Admittedly, he was more theoretical and mathematical and less experimental than Priestley, but it's hard to discount his logic or his commitment to causality in natural law. Given his various accomplishments such as inventing calculus and the conservation of energy (which led to much of modern science), it seems as though we should give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his scientific-ness. On the other hand, I don't know much about Priestley beyond what I've learned from you, so it could be that I'm not understanding what he believed in.

I'm planning on going to the library, probably tomorrow, to look up secondary sources on Leibniz, beyond the ones available on the web such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But I wasn't sure what I should be looking for. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the two points seem to be:

• Did Leibniz believe that human actions were determined by natural law?
• Did Leibniz believe that that determinism was consistent with traditional Christianity?

I believe that the answer is yes to both. For the first point, Leibniz enunciated the principle of sufficient reason, and held that there was a rationally intelligible chain of events. He utterly rejected any form of randomness or arbitrariness in the universe, a prejudice that held for centuries until quantum mechanics came along. For the second point, he was a firm believer in traditional Christianity, and even tried to re-unite the churches; he devoted much writing to clarifying and reconciling properties of God that might seem mutually exclusive, such as omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence and justice. As an aside, one point I wasn't sure about was whether it was OK to say that Priestley believed in "traditional Christianity"; certainly he did as he saw it, but the modern reader might not se it the same way. Willow 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• One reason that I would say that Leibniz is less scientific than Priestley is because he was simply exposed to much less "science"/natural philosophy, since he lived so much earlier. He could not have known as much. You cite his invention of "the calculus", but of course, that is mathematics, not science.

• Let's look at the first question: "Did Leibniz believe that human actions were determined by natural law?" One of the things that would be most important to understand in answering this question is what Leibniz meant by "natural law". Priestley, apparently, anyway felt that there was only one way for life to unfold - there was no free will, for example - but he also believed that God was bound by natural laws. Did this also mean that God had no free will? That is not clear to me.

• Definitions are even more important to the second question; what does "traditional Christianity" mean? Priestley was intent on stripping away the accumulation of centuries of "corruptions" and "traditions" that had attached themselves to Christianity. To call him a Christian, however, in the 1770s and 1780s starts to become difficult. He rejected the Virgin Birth. He rejected the divinity the Christ. It all depends on what you think defines a Christian. Certainly during the eighteenth century, many readers of his books did not think he was a Christian (he was often labeled a deist or atheist). Priestley would not have been interested in re-uniting the churches, for example, because he thought they were tainted. He was part of a project undertaken by the Unitarians to retranslate the Bible, for example, to fix all of the errors (that had to be dropped from the article, unfortunately). However, he obviously thought that retranslating the Bible had some value. What to make of that?

• Priestley was interested in writing about matter and the soul - issues I know Leibniz was interested in as well. This might be where they have the greatest cross-over. Let me know if any of this helps. By the way, have you seen this Leibniz website? It looks pretty good.

• On a fun sidenote, have you read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? I think you might like it. Awadewit | talk 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting fun and interesting! :D I can understand why you want to go into the academy from our little echo of it here. I'll do my best to keep up.

Let's see, fun things first. I haven't seen Neal Stephenson's works before, but they do look good. Sadly, the Newton-Leibniz controversy wasn't one, as we now know from a recently discovered cache of letters from Leibniz to Newton; it was just a show, prompted mainly by the low shenanigans of Johann Bernoulli, that got out of hand.

I did discover that translation website for Leibniz just this week. He seems great, and I really appreciate his bringing Leibniz's works to the public. I was going to send him my translation of Confessio philosophi, but then I noticed that he already had his own. I only read the beginning and the end, but I must confess that I prefer my own; oh well, a parent should love their own children, no?

I see that you're doing great things to our hospitable friend JJ! Before you nominate him for FAC, can I just add a few things more? I still have my notes from a few months ago, maybe twelve things or so, that I've been meaning to add but got distracted. I'll try to do that today, and then get back to the JP thing.

There's lots to say about L and JP, but let me postpone that for now? I'll start a new section below; it's easier to edit a smaller section! One important question: did Priestley believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? That seems to be the pivotal question for whether one believes in "traditional Christianity", don't you think? The divinity question is important, too, although there have been countless shades and systems of belief on that score, most of them developed over a millennium before Leibniz or Priestley were born. By contrast, the Virgin birth thing is small potatoes; I hope I don't get flamed for it, but I think it's historically true that the immaculate conception became an article of faith much, much later.

Can I just say how much I like talking to you, even before I have my coffee? I can feel my brain expanding. :) Willow 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow! (If you already know what I am about to tell you just whack me with a trout o_0) I'm sorry to break in, but I am afraid that I may be responsible for some misinformation. This is patent nonsense released as a joke into the mathematical community. I tried to trick G-guy with it back in his Archive 2 (he didn't fall for it...), but I am afraid that you may have just scanned the conversation and taken it to heart. I'm sorry for any mix up that my trickster ways have caused.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Piltdown University! It's already brilliant! Awadewit | talk 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blush blush blush Oh Cronholm, it wasn't even two weeks ago that I told Roger that "I'm a credulosaur and a gullibilodon", and now I have the perfect proof. :) You and G-guy are much too nice to me in thinking my tongue was in cheek; I confess I was completely taken in. I can't even claim to have just scanned your conversation; I followed the link and read the whole story, which seemed plausible to me and consistent with what I knew (or wanted to believe) of the protagonists' personalities. Oh well, I daresay I'll embarrass myself much worse the longer you know me, so I might as well set the bar early; you'll just have to live with me as I am. :) In return I promise I'll never whack you with a trout or any other member of the Osteichthyes. ;) Affectionately and foolishly, dashing off to class, Willow 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I had it as a 50-50, but knew that whatever the outcome, you would be lovely about it! And I was right of course. The N-L article is a wonderful piece, though: it begins very plausibly and gradually drops hints that it might be a joke in a charming way. I encourage rereading it for a good laugh! Geometry guy 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, G-guy!  :) It's really good to hear your voice again; I've missed you and Cronholm. One of these days, I'll start working on math-y Featured Articles again, and then we'll enjoy the pleasure of each other's company more regularly. :) Despite his success, I don't think Cronholm makes a very good Loki; he's more of a Heimdall, don't you think? and I'm probably closest to Ratatosk, a red-head who flits between worlds. ;) Willow 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Willow?

Does your increased activity mean that you have returned from your vacation and from the harvest? :) Awadewit | talk 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you believe it, I'm still getting raspberries, peppers and tomatoes this late in the season? I just harvested another few bushels of the latter two this past weekend, which I've been cheerfully munching and putting up every day. My pepper plants have grown quite tall and all woody, as if we were living in Costa Rica, and I keep wanting to tell them, "Ummm, guys, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't going to last forever." ;) I've begun to pull in my herbs and whatnot; I'm sure that winter can't be far away. For now, though, the days are warm and the trees are positively luminous, suffusing that beautiful shade of red and green and golden light all together at once. I think there are no words in any language that can describe the colors or even the feelings that the colors awaken, don't you agree? Leaves much to be desired. Soon they'll come to rest and go into my garden and, next spring, the cycle of life will start anew for us all. :) Willow 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Sounds like the effects of global warming. We had summer here until the middle of October. Good to read your words again. :) I have missed having you around. Awadewit | talk 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed talking to you, too! I'll try to drop in as much as I'm able. I've been busy with enzymes, a little set of gifts for my friends at the MCB WikiProject, and I've recently discovered a new enthusiasm, Usher syndrome. I still have to incorporate your suggestions for X-ray crystallography, though, as well as my own library notes. :( Oh well, you can't dance at every wedding. :) Willow 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Too true. I just had to turn down reviewing Hamlet. :( Awadewit | talk 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look where all those enzymes have gotten you: User:Bryan/List of users by pages created. You're number 41 on the list, and about 10 of the accounts ahead of you are robots! --JayHenry 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I was hoping that no one would notice that — I'm afraid I'm one of those who are "as fearful of praise as others are of neglect". :P It's only going to get worse, too; not only are there all those enzymes left to do, but I've done only the smallest fraction of the taxonomy articles...oh well, I'm just going to pretend this never happened and blithely forge ahead, imagining that I'm still SuperSecretGirl working in the shadows of Wikipedia... ;) Willow 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, just be glad they don't have Wikipedia:Wikipedians by amount of modesty. Let me put it this way: I have a friend whose path in life has him preparing for his MCATs. His biochem professor encourages the students to look stuff up first on Wikipedia. Now, I'm not much of a science guy (mitochondriwhat?), but that probably includes your enzymes. To the prof and students you're still SuperSecretShadowGirl, but you are also still greatly appreciated. --JayHenry 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

blush — ok, it's true, and thank you, but let me protest that, knowing my own shortcomings, I have many good reasons to be modest; you really should believe me on that! But I'm also really happy to hear your professor story; it makes me feel as though we're not working in vain, that we're actually reaching out and helping other people. It's thrilling to feel that we're crafting something beautiful and good here, breathing life into it and watching it fly away... Thinking that you feel the same way, :) Willow 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I'll be glad to be a friendly supporter, but I think I might be out of my depth over there. I love literature, as you can probably tell by the way I leak quotations over everything, but I know next to nothing about literature criticism. I'm also feeling rather guilty for not contributing to the Textile Arts Wikiproject, which I helped to start, ages ago now it seems... Willow 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poliomyelitis

User:DO11.10 and User:MarcoTolo have been working on poliomyelitis for some time and DO11.10 is close to nominating at FAC. I'm partway through reviewing and copyediting but I'm not good enough to get it up to FAC quality. I'd really appreciate it if you could help to ensure it is well prepared for FAC. I think it needs some further copyediting and help making some parts lay-reader-friendly.

BTW, looking at your amazing contributions, I think you may be able to help me with some of tuberous sclerosis. There are parts of that subject that I would very much like to see improved but just can't get my head round, never mind write about. It isn't urgent, but if you might be interested, let me know. No pressure. Regards, Colin°^Talk 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Both articles are very cool; well done! :) I don't have time to review them just this moment, but I'll try to do so over the next few days. Nice to meet you, Colin! :) Willow 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not about polio, but the other day I happened to see 4-hydroxyphenylacetaldehyde dehydrogenase roll across the new articles ticker. Your edit summary cracked me up!!: new Wikipedia page for enzyme, something-ase --DO11.10 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There'll be a lot more where that came from! I confess I get a little bored, so I try to change around the edit summaries to keep myself amused. I'll often "dedicate" them to friends; thoughts of them make me happy and blissed while I'm tooling away...:) I hope they don't mind that I'm ensconcing them in the database! Willow 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I'll know where to go next time I need a good laugh!--DO11.10 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A wee favor

Hey best friend: One of my adoptees (Bwthemoose) has created the Myeloma protein page. Since you're a science guru and I should never argue with you about anything relating to science you know about science and I don't, I wonder if you'd be willing to have a look and/or keep an eye on it. Right now it's very stubby. Thanks. – Scartol · Talk 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scartol,

I'll be happy to help your friend however I can, although I have to warn you both that I know nothing about cancer and all that. I'll try to look into it and see what I can find out. Any of course, I'll be glad to keep an eye on it; it's on my watchlist now. :) Willow 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-nom?

You'd be welcome to add your recommendation. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy. Tim Vickers 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! :) I hope I wasn't too gushy. Willow 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rfa

Wow, just read your supportive comments. Thanks a ton! it means a lot from you. :) David D. (Talk) 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! :) Although I'm only the moon to your sun, reflecting your own back to you; you earned it very well, as I hope you know. :) Willow 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-Nom + RFA formating

The proper format for RFA's is if you want to Co-nominate someone then you type:

'''Co-nom from {{User|WillowW}}''' Reason for co-nomination ~~~~

under the other nominations.

If you want to comment then add a comment to your decision to support or oppose.

This RFA:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy for example. If you want to support then you should wait until it goes live to support since some users don't like discussions before it goes public and even oppose the RFA's based on that. If you want to add comments other than about your support then do those under the "Discussion" area listed above the "Support" part. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikidudeman, I have to run off to work soon; is it OK now? The candidacy probably won't go live until tomorrow, anyway, so we have a little time to fix it up. :) Willow 01:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JJ

I've been working on JJ and Analytical Review lately. There is just a bit more reading that needs to be done (which I will finish up soon) and that endless polishing of language. If you have time, could you drop by and see how they are progressing? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do, if I have any time; I've a lot that I want to get done for the MCB WikiProject! Wish me luck, Willow 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No pressure. I just didn't want you to think that I was running roughshod over all of your beautiful contributions! Awadewit | talk 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're great; you know that? Please don't worry about me; between us there's fathoms of slack and oceans to play freely in. I can't wait to see all the wonderful things that you've done with the articles! :)Willow 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's a good stopping place for me; I need to spend the night knitting all those enzymes out of my brain! :) If you have a moment and a penchant for wandering, could you please cast a glance at Usher syndrome and give me suggestions? It's still very early stages there, but I'd appreciate any of your excellent ideas. Thanks muchly! :) Willow 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I don't think I will have a chance to get around to it until this weekend, though. The dissertation calls. Awadewit | talk 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating reductase

I'm going to have to take your word that Aquacobalamin reductase is fascinating because all I understood was "it is a catalyst"! Just one question. If it has all those other names - Vitamin B12a reductase etc. - should those be redirects? Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll eventually get around to making those redirects; it's enough work just getting the main name for now! I have been doing a few obvious redirects, such as mdashes and Greek->Roman letters and whatnot. Willow 15:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes if I have a few minutes spare and can't think of anything else to do I like to make some redirects, so I wanted to be clear on this before I started messing around and screwing things up! Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus, that'd be great! :) Good luck and see you around, Willow 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review list

Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers. Awadewit | talk 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quelle coincidence! I've have just come from adding meself when I happened upon this... --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

At first I was shy about volunteering, since I prefer to copy-edit for friends. But on second thought, I've made such good friends by copy-editing or being copy-edited — such as you both and Scartol — that my first thought seems entirely backwards. :) Besides, the community of volunteers there include some of my best friends here, and I don't want to be left out of the party. ;) Willow 12:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why thank you, my friend!

Thank you Ms Willow for your lovely words of congratulations! I handed in around a week ago, a great weight off my small shoulders! (and actually at this moment I am listening to our mutual friend Awadewit's podcast with Wikipedia Weekly)

I am having a little break now, but am also volunteering for the Australian Federal Election which is currently underway. So I am planning a lovely holiday with my mother in the week following the election, which will be lovely. My mum lives a fair way away from me in the country, where I grew up, so I don't see her that often: a shared holiday will be glorious!

I will be emailing out pdf copies of the thesis to all participants in the next few days, so look out for yours in your inbox....

oh, and my garden is also doing very well...but with spring/summer herbs and vegies. we have just had a week or so of persistent rain with the sun now out, so I am hoping for some good growth in the coming weeks!

Best and love, tamsin 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no see

Hi Willow, somehow or other I lost track of you after I asked you to look at Harold Pinter. Dunno how I let that happen... Hope things are going well! later, --Ling.Nut 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut! :)

You might be surprised how much you've been in my thoughts. :) Short though it was, I still have good memories of our time together at Georg Cantor, and your friendships with G-guy and Cronholm make you thrice welcome here. Speaking mathematically, friendship is a highly coupled, highly non-linear network — at least in my wee brain. ;)

As I hope you agree, Harold Pinter turned out very well, and I think I might've earned the respect of NYScholar. Certainly, he earned mine from the care and devotion he lavished on the article. Hoping that our threads will cross again in the tapestry of Wikipedia, Willow 12:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ‎Formimidoyltetrahydrofolate cyclodeaminase

Are you sure that wasn't just a typing test? I can't even pronounce it! Bielle 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your great note, Bielle! You made me laugh, which is a wonderful way to start the morning. :) Especially before I have my coffee! ;)

It does look formidable, doesn't it? But it's not so bad when you begin to recognize the parts. It's like when you first begin to learn the stars and constellations, and the night sky is no longer a chaotic mess of lights, but filled with friends that come and go with the seasons... :)

Here's a picture of the chemical reaction that this enzyme is catalyzing. The molecule on the left is closely related to folic acid (also known as "folate"), which is an essential nutrient; check your local cereal box. :) It's had four hydrogens added, so it's "tetrahydro-folate". Then someone added the funny group -CH=NH to second ring — you can see it dangling next to the oxygen at the upper left — that's the "formimidoyl" part. The enzyme strips off the nitrogen part of that group forming ammonia (hence, it's a de-aminase) and it crosslinks two atoms, forming a new ring (that's the "cyclo" part). The pronunciation follows the concepts, so it's "formimidoyl-tetrahydro-folate cyclo-de-aminase". See? it's not so bad. :) Enzyme names are just like Sanskrit compounds, euphonious and elegantly economical without being elliptical; you just have to unpack them patiently, like a care-package from Mom. :) Willow 12:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Just like Sanskrit" you say! You do make me laugh, too. Sanskrit is even less comprehensible to me than chemical compounds and/or reactions. The one thing Wikipedia does for all us common folk is make us aware how many truly learned, renaissance people there are in our world. So, having carefully unpacked, where's the chocolate cake she promised? Bielle 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're so nice, Bielle! That's what I like about Wikipedia, too: the company of such fun, good-natured people, who have wit and know how to use it gently and generously. :) But I can't lay claim to knowing Sanskrit; my sister taught me a few things, like how the old scholars in Panini's time would compete over who could pack words most elegantly. She also taught me a few thought-provoking words like nisvabhava, the idea that nothing stands alone; we all come into being with each other's help. :) BTW, pure chocolate keeps longer than cake; at least it would, if we could only resist temptation. ;) A trifling truffle, Willow 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I shall never stop bugging you for peer reviews

Hey best friend – I've spent some time improving Harriet Tubman and I'm trying to get it ready for FAC. Would you care to do a peer review? Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do, S! Although you have to promise to do Sojourner Truth someday as well; she's my hero! :) Willow 18:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I actually had to choose between Tubman and Truth, and obviously the former won out. ST is an incredible lady, no doubt. When I get done with Timor and the other things I've got planned, I may go through and have at Ms. Truth. Thanks again! – Scartol · Talk 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Let me just dash off about 30 enzymes, which I've been preparing, and then I'll turn to HT. You have a wonderful taste for articles to work on — very cool! :) Willow 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Tubman

Wow, it's an excellent article, Scartol! I wish I was as keen-eyed as some of our friends, but I can scarcely find anything that I would change. I do think you made the right choice in writing about HT before ST.

Two phrases did leap out at me; I like them and their vivacity, but I suspect that others will want you to change their wording to something more prosaic:

• "Rit struggled to keep their family together as slavery tried to tear it apart."

• "This undying religious perspective instructed her throughout her life."

Something about "lady friend Catherine" also called itself to my attention, but I'm not sure why; does it sound OK to you?

I'll look at the article again tonight; maybe something will occur to me once I've had a chance to stew over it? Willow 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel the need to dig extra deep. I don't think it needs much work, just wanted to run it through the Peer-Review paces before I take it to FA (the more likely to make it through). Thank you for your kind feedback! I appreciate your effusive praise. Responses:

• "Rit struggled…" This is the revised version! It was even more stilted before. I actually like the way this one is now (it's a fair topic sentence for the paragraph, methinks), but I'm willing to entertain suggestions for an alternative.
• "This undying religious perspective…" Yeah, I was probably burning the midnight oil on this one. I'll try to come up with something more clear when I have a minute.
• "lady friend Catherine" was one I was hoping no one would object to. For years I referred to the woman who is now my wife as "my special lady friend", because "girlfriend" sounded like I was 14, and "partner" is someone I play tennis with. So I love that phrase, and wanted desperately to include it here. (It does accurately describe their relationship; they were neither married nor engaged, and again I think "girlfriend" is a weird way to put it.) But, again, I'm open to alternatives.

Thanks again, W. You rock! – Scartol · Talk 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, please don't change them for me, especially the "Rit" and "lady friend" sentences; I like them as is! I also don't think Wikipedia policy requires us to write in dry prose, although I default to that if I'm worried that someone will object to my sometimes overly colourful writing. For example, here you could say, "Rit struggled to keep her family together despite her owner's wish to sell them off individually, as occurred frequently under slavery."; but I much prefer your version, anthropomorphizing slavery and making it a pitched battle between a mother and a heartless, vicious institution. I've admired your rare gift for writing vividly but still professionally in your other articles as well. Good luck at FAC! :) Willow 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A "gift"

Link. Tim Vickers 03:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Timotheus et dona ferens. ;) You're really sweet, and I think I would walk to the Moon for you, but you shouldn't lead me into temptation. ;D Although I prefer Catullus, I've read just enough Virgil to be shy of herpetological entanglements. ;) Willow 12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of science

After the great Newton-Leibniz fiasco of ought seven, I don't know if you are willing to delve into the history of science again, but just in case you are, I think that Le Sage's theory of gravitation could use the Willow touch. I just failed it for GA, but felt very guilty about it. I am now trying to rustle up editors who might be able and willing to contribute to it in some meaningful way. :) Awadewit | talk 08:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only a fiasco if we feel bad about it, no? I'm actually a little fond of my gullibility, since it brings me such nice presents: peals of sweet laughter all around, dear friends coming back into my life, and a little exercise for those muscles that control eye rolling. Oh well, there's no hope for a cure. ;)

I'll be glad to tackle Le Sage's theory of gravitation; it seems interesting and I'm sure I'll enjoy learning about it. :) But I also feel as though I'm stepping further and further out onto thin ice, committing myself to too many interesting distractions. I have this foreboding sense that I'm frustrating people here by leaving so many things half-done or done poorly. I'm sitting next to a six-inch pile of library notes and photocopies I've collected for transformer, general relativity, Catullus, Acetabularia, loop of Henle, X-ray crystallography, Usher syndrome and of course JJ. Once I've made the effort to understand a topic in more detail, it would be a pity if I didn't get the chance to enter it into Wikipedia, no? Maybe I'm just blue because it's so early in the morning, but I also feel as though I haven't gotten anything significant done here for months. I feel frantically busy, but nothing ever seems to get accomplished. :( The failure of Catullus 2 as a good article, although it was nominated prematurely by someone else, hit me rather hard; I feel as though I ought to be able to do more, but I don't. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, I'm sure I'll feel better once I've made some coffee ;) indigo girl Willow 11:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Six inch? I have a six foot pile of books teetering next to my desk. :) No worries. My dad always says, "take one thing at a time and eventually everything will get done". It is amazing how hard it is to follow that simple advice, but he is right. Like you, I feel pulled in many directions at once and am constantly starting new projects, but I know that eventually they will all work out, especially as we meet wonderful new editors who can work with us (I have just started epilepsy with Colin, for example). I suppose it is good to remind ourselves that there are no deadlines, eh? I think you do a tremendous amount for wikipedia and I wouldn't be worried about C2 - you'll eventually get it worked up to the appropriate level and it will breeze through GA. Awadewit | talk 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeay for dads! :) I think he's right on; it's just that I'm easily enthused and get distracted all too often. After all that, I can't believe that I'm about to say this — but if you do want any help with epilepsy, I'd be glad to help out in whatever small way I can. Thanks for the kind encouragement, A! :) Willow 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Colin and I have set up an epilepsy collaboration page. We're trying to hash out what needs to be in the page and what are the best sources. It is very schematic right now, as we just started. You can follow our progress and jump in whenever the muse sings. Awadewit | talk 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

“

Τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις ταῖς ἔμαισι τέρπνα κάλως ἀείσω. — Sappho

”

I think I'm ready to jump in and do something besides enzymes — just not tonight. ;) Willow (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-coding RNA

Hi WillowW, Did you include your List of non-coding RNA somewhere in the mainspace? I think this should be a standalone article. The list is very helpful, as everything you do.-- Biophys (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to put that up in mainspace, although it will be need to be augmented with Jennifer's latest additions. I might make a few other tweaks as well.  :) Willow (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everything you do is helpful, may be you should consider being an admin? ;) David D. (Talk) 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I like you and my other admin friends very much, David and I understand why you think being an admin is no big deal. It's not — for you. I have several layers of superficial reasons of why I shouldn't become an admin, which I'm sure that you could discount or allay or charm me into ignoring against both our better judgments. ;) But you need to believe me that there's somewhere beautiful I need to go, a journey and a tapestry I need to make alone, and that being an admin would be a burden, not a blessing. I'm sorry to disappoint you and the others another time, but I know you'll do well without me. As sorrowful as my namesake, but not as yielding, Willow (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should put a banner at the top of your talk page, Willow: "Really, I don't want to be an admin - really. No St Crispian's Day speech will sway me." Awadewit | talk 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to talk to my friends one-on-one, and be gentle in letting them down. It's very unlikely that any non-friend would ever ask me to be an admin, so a banner would serve nought. But I almost wish I could be swayed by a St. Crispin's speech; perhaps something like

“

Then shall their brave names, familiar as household words — Tim, David, Geometry guy — be in our flowing cups freshly remembered; and editors now-abed shall think themselves accurs'd they weren't admins, and hold their sainthoods cheap whiles any speaks that succeeded in changing the WP:MOS and WP:RS policies for the better. ;)

”

Good gentles, forgive a wench that means better than she can; be she e'er so vile, your kindness shall gentle her condition. :) Willow (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFL!!!! Accurs'd Willow, I understand your reservations very well, as I also do not want adminship to change my relation with Wikipedia at all. Really, though, it isn't such a burdon. In my five days of bravery so far, I have deleted two pages (both housekeeping, not articles), and made one protected edit (to a template, not an article). Alas, no progress on WP:MOS and WP:RS. Oh well, there are others braver than me... Geometry guy 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin or no, I can't be accursed if you keep making me smile and laugh as you do! :) (I had to look up what ROFL meant, though.) Once I finish these lyases, I'll try to plumb the depths of homotopy groups of spheres; despite its unfamiliarity, it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be, a glowing tribute to your writing. :) Willow (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like those acronyms in the same way as emoticons: "that really made me laugh" sounds like a formal report of a self-observation. I hope you enjoy liasing with your lyases. As for homotopy groups of spheres, well, actually, I didn't write any of it; I just copyedited the work of others. In particular, the background section is a complete recent rewrite by KSmrq, which I haven't had time to look over in detail yet, although it looks good. Geometry guy 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pulling your leg, I knew what your answer would be. Nevertheless, I didn't expect the thoughtful poetry above. I was half expecting the curt "no and stop bugging me" approach. :) David D. (Talk) 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pages

Well you definitely gave me a laugh with the creation summaries. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So glad you like it! We all need to have fun, no? In good humours, Willow (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

heroic work. glad you found something to relieve the potential tedium of it DGG (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Superb work, I watched the lyases come in one by one. I'm going to bed happy tonight. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! :) Dream well, sweet prince, and flights of angels wing thee! For myself, I've drunk too deeply the milk of paradise; I'm in a fey mood and may finish the ligases before you rise again. :) But sirrah, by my fey, it does wax late: I'll to my rest eventually, me and my poor wrist both, where we'll knit up the ravelled sleeve of care with a radiant smile. ;) Willow (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey WillowW. You must have drunk lots of magic juice to be churning out all those! Cool stuff :D Tom Hundred Percent (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom! :) I'm really reaching my limit, though; it's soon to bed for me. I'm swaying to my music/poetry but for other reasons as well. ;) Sappho-happy, Willow (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PBB request

Sorry to take so long, but your request for PBB to make gene stubs related to Usher Syndrome is now complete. Enjoy! AndrewGNF (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Andrew — you and John (and the PBB) are the best! :) I'll put the new genes to good use on the Usher syndrome page. Willow (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As quiet as mice

Hi, Willow! :) I feel like a little mouse squeaking from over here...Did you know Dorothy Kilner wrote one of the first mouse-perspective children's stories? Awadewit | talk 06:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's delightful, although I was very sorry to read the unhappy (and graphic) fates of Softdown and Brighteyes. :( I also felt very sad for Nimble that he should lose his last surviving brother, Longtail, although the story ends happily in his new home. I can also now see why you're ambivalent about cat userboxes. ;) Willow (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite graphic aren't they? Life and Perambulation is the centerpiece of my chapter on violence in eighteenth-century children's literature. By the way, what did you think about the little boy being beaten like he abused the mouse? Quite the little vignette, eh? I read that whole scene aloud at two different conferences and both times people laughed. Tells you our aesthetic has changed, because I don't think it was meant to be funny. :) Awadewit | talk 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a little surprised and pleased that they had such stern moral sympathies for animals in the 18th century; perhaps they knew even then that a child's cruelty to animals is often their first step to some very dark places? I was brought up on Black Beauty and I can still remember the horrible beatings she received despite her best efforts, as if I'd received them myself. (I know BB was supposed to be a "he" but I couldn't help but think of her as a "she" when I was five and I've never stopped since; funny, no?) On the other hand, I can't really support beating children, since violence breeds other violence and powerlessness breeds a taste for petty tyrannies. Sorry if I'm overly earnest about children's stuff, Willow (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That was precisely the theory, actually. In Sarah Trimmer's Fabulous Histories (a.k.a. The Story of the Robins), the boy who torments the animals in the story comes to a very bad end, while the children who are kind to animals turn out well. This thinking is spread across much late eighteenth-century children's literature. Wollstonecraft says in Original Stories from Real Life (or is it Thoughts on the Education of Daughters?) that a child goes from animals, to people, to God, essentially. It is part of a new "animal-rights" movement of sorts that was associated with sensibility. Interestingly, a group to promote the rights of animals was founded in Britain a century before a group to promote the rights of children (one reason why there was child labor in factories). By the way, Trimmer's Fabulous Histories is one of the first (if not the first) "animal story" in English children's literature. It is the progenitor of BB, Beatrix Potter, etc. I could go on for hours about this. Stop me now. (I should really do an article on Fabulous Histories and remove the excess verbiage from Trimmer. Sigh - so much work to do. Awadewit | talk 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm working on another publisher article you might find interesting (just to read!) - John Boydell. It is kind of a mess right now, though. Awadewit | talk 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've met myself! Awadewit | talk 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ? It's wonderful to see two such scrupulous and devoted editors working together in harmony; this may be your best article yet! :)

I'll be absent much of the next few days, as my family is descending to help me appreciate my harvest and the hard work my plants put in this summer. ;) There's still a harvest or two of raspberries left on the brambles, and leeks and Swiss chard and whatnot, but winter is descending on us quickly. I'm also trying to finish a gift sweater by tomorrow night, although that might be asking too much. Wish me luck, and have a happy Thanksgiving, Willow (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! Analytical Review has now achieved GA status. Hopefully this assuages some of the pain from Catullus 2? You did so much of the work for the Review! Awadewit | talk 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is wonderful news, especially since the Anti-Jacobin Review is stuck in Start. ;) The mill of Truth grinds slowly but exceedingly fine; but we should do the AJR justice some day. For me, though, AR was mostly fun because it gave me a chance to brush wings with you. :) Looking forward to another brush on JJ, but all-too-busy with my family this week, Willow (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

I am soliciting peer reviews for a little article I wrote on Sarah Trimmer's The Guardian of Education. If you have a moment, could you take a look at it? I'm not planning on taking it to FAC, but I do want critiques of it. The peer review is here. Awadewit | talk 10:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look, although you know that my eyes are not the keenest; I usually like everything I read, especially of yours. :) Willow (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Roll my eyes. :) Your reviews are excellent. Thanks again. Awadewit | talk 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyases

Would you please stop creating lyase articles before consulting some WikiProject, probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. I'm not qualified to determine whether they all deserve articles, but listing properties of chemicals without references as to actual use seems to violate Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, I'm very sorry to have troubled you with this avalanche of lyases, but I assure you that the articles are being made with the hearty approval of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject; I urge you to ask the MCB Coordinator, Tim Vickers, or David D. for confirmation of that. You may also note Tim's nice note about the lyases a little above here, in the section "New Pages".

It may seem as though these oddly-named lyases couldn't possibly be all notable, but I assure you that they are. As their articles mention, these lyases play essential roles in various metabolisms of biochemistry and are found in many living organisms. In some cases, their breakdown or absence can also lead to metabolic diseases of humans. Admittedly, the articles are very rudimentary right now, but that's more my shortcoming than any indication of their unnotability; it would be very difficult for me to do better for so many enzymes and with the limited resources available to me. I'll hold off adding more articles until I hear further from you, though, hoping that you'll be much mollified by my answer. :) Willow (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if WP:MCB approves, I have no objection. I was on new article patrol, and I was a bit surprised to find so many long article creations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur! :) I got a little distracted right now, but I'll return and add a few more lyases in a short while. Come again some other time, and we'll chat about math! :) User:Geometry guy and I were thinking of making a Featured Topic about spherical geometry; might you be interested in that? Of course it would take forever and be really complicated, but we've time enough here at Wikipedia, no? ;) It seems a worthy pursuit and full of beautiful pictures. Willow (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi WillowW, I modified your PDB link template to try another PDB portal, PDBsum. It seems to be better, especially for enzymes, because this database also shows chemical reactions and usually provides brief abstract [1]. It better shows ligands [2] and polypeptide chains. If you click subunits (e.g. A 373 a.a.), it gives nice picture with secondary structure and aa sequence [3]. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biophys, at first glance, it seems excellent; good work! I learn something new every day from you all; thank you! :) Willow (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzymes

HI thanks for your work on enzymes. However is it necessary to have so many external links? Most editors woulld regard it as spam. Couldn't you stick to three or four links maximum? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sir Blofeld and welcome once again to my Talk page! :)

As I mentioned above, it's possible to reduce them, but not without some loss of valuble information; each site makes its own contribution. We could discuss this further at the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject, but there've been no objections so far from the members. See the nice comments above by our Coordinator, Tim Vickers , under the section "New Pages".

One nifty feature you might not have noticed is that many of the references and external links are supplied by two templates, {{Enzyme references}} and {{Enzyme links}}, respectively. If we decide to change the number or type of those references or external links, we need make only one change, and all the enzyme pages will be altered together. So it seems safe to postpone the decision about which databases to keep, and which to pass over.

Hoping that my answer addresses your concerns, Willow (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK -I know a few links is good anyway as they provide editors looking to expand the articles at a later date with adequate sources to investigate, I did notice quite a few though! Keep up the good work anyway -content like this only makes the encyclopedia look more genius. Adios my tree ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir Blofeld! :) You're welcome back here any time you like. Willow (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

I am not condoning the edit summaries on some of those new enzyme pages you created, but I have to admit some were pretty cute. As a courtesy to other editors you may wish to use more useful ones when editing an established article, although that is not to say they cannot be both useful and cute! Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I know that they're a little odd, but they're meant as tributes to my fellow Wikipedians' hard work and to amuse both me and the nice people patrolling the Special:Newpages. Occasionally, I'll work in a nice quote from Sappho, Shakespeare, Jane Austen or somebody fun. :) I usually try to be more professional, though, so I'll try to stay prim for the next while yet, with maybe one or two lapses. Willow (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. What's with the edit summaries?? What's the point in that? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sir Blofeld,

There's no particular point, except to maintain happy spirits in myself and other Wikipedians as we merrily waltz through hundreds of sometimes dry enzyme articles. I don't see that there's any harm done in giving a smile to others who work so hard here, such as the patrollers on the Newpages, or the recently interviewed Awadewit. As you may have noticed, however, I've been refraining recently from overly colourful "dedications", but a bit of humour and warmth is bound to peek through. ;) Willow (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's always something to complain about. Nothing is ever good enough. *Dramatic sigh*. :) Awadewit | talk 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DIY conversion kit

I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi ROGER!

Your table looks good, although you might consider grouping the terms into two tables, one for those that differ and another for those that stay the same. I was just joking about major factor needing to become majour factour, but others might not see the distinction between the French terms couleur and facteur. Are there principles or rules that govern those irregular transitions? If there are, it might be helpful to give them on your page. If it is rule-based and you're really good, you could write a little computer-program server-thing to do the transitions automatically! :) Just a thought, Willow (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Willow! I can probably work many variant rules out. Webster (who was involved with many of them) was a logical fellow so I don't suppose he did them randomly. One of the most interesting things about tabulating this was seeing how American and British inconsistencies follow different patterns. And, no, I've never done any programming in my life. Thanks for the comments and if you get any bright ideas please let me know.... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xanthan lyase

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Xanthan lyase, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://us.expasy.org/enzyme/4.2.2.12.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see why your bot thought the text describing the reaction was overly similar to the Expasy wording, but it's been fixed now. Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Article spruced, expanded and referenced. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! I might be able to finish off the ATPases today, but probably not; I've guests arriving in the evening, and some sweater sleeves to finish! Ta-ta, Willow (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VK mention

Sorry I missed it! It looks like it deserves a mention - though should I edit the current edition to insert it? Or wait for the next edition? I'm very new at this, and don't really know the convention. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, PG! I suppose you could just insert it into the present edition; it doesn't seem so important that it needs a full week in the sun. ;) But perhaps there are rules about it and we should ask someone? By the way, I know just how you feel about being new; I feel the same way all the time. :) Willow (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your vote

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1). As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki. I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me. Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom elections

Did you vote last year in the ArbCom elections? I'm trying to do my wiki-civic duty and figure out how and who to vote for, but I'm finding the whole process a bit confusing. Any advice you could offer a newbie would be much appreciated. :) Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, I moved (an edited version of) the JP discussion onto the JP talk page, as I didn't want that discussion to get lost. I have hidden the Leibniz sentence until we can finish hashing that out. I hope you don't mind. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's OK with me, and I'll try to get to the library as promised. Please correct me if I've misunderstood something, but my goal there is to find secondary texts that confirm the assertions in the primary text that (1) Leibniz believed in traditional Christianity, and (2) believed that all human actions were determined by natural laws. I'll let you handle the question of whether the same are true of Priestley; that's outside my province! Willow (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my response on the JP page? I don't think JP believed in "traditional Christianity", so this is all very confusing. Several things would need to be established:

L1. Leibniz did not believe in free will

L2. Leibniz accepted something like absolute determinism

L3. Leibniz believed that determinism and Christianity could be reconciled

L4. Leibniz believed that the world operated by natural laws (the definition of natural laws is not precisely clear to me here - you?)

L5. Leibniz believed that God was subject to these natural laws

L6. Leibniz believed that these natural laws tended towards human perfection

This is a very long list of things, as you can see. This is one reason why I do not think that they held the same position. Also, I have a feeling that their definitions of "free will", "determinism", "Christianity", and "natural law" are just going to be too different. Awadewit | talk 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding? I didn't mean to suggest that Priestley and Leibniz thought identically on every point of theology, merely on the two points that human actions were determined by natural laws (L4, from which L1 and L2 follow) and that that lack of "free will" was reconcilable with traditional Christianity (L3). I wasn't trying to say that Leibniz believed L5 and L6, although, taken in a certain sense, those could be considered as true as well.

It's been a few years since I translated the primary text, but my memory of its arguments is as follows.

T1. Leibniz holds the principle of sufficient reason as an axiom; according to Leibniz's text, its negation would allow the law of excluded middle to be violated. Therefore, causality holds, and there is a well-defined chain of events in which everyone and everything participates. Therefore, L4, L1 and L2 hold.

The reconciliation with traditional Christianity (L3) takes a little more work:

T2. Alternative chains of events were logically possible, since their opposite did not invoke a contradiction. However, being an all-knowing and all-powerful essence, God would necessarily choose the one most beautiful chain of events from among all the logical alternatives; dark, evil things are necessary elements of the chain of events to bring about the most powerful experience of beauty when viewing the chain of events as a whole.

T3. Concept such as the number 2, or truths such as 2x2=4 and the irrationality of the , do not result from God's willing them, but from God thinking them. According to Leibniz, the same is true for the sense of beauty (harmony) and the definitions of diversity/harmony, etc. Thus, God does not will evil per se; it is merely the logical consequence of choosing the objectively most beautiful chain of events. Regarding L5, God does not wish for anything irrational, that would violate his own thinking, e.g., that "two" would somehow not be "two"; therefore, in that sense, God is subject to (respects) his own natural laws.

T4. It may seem unjust that evil people are damned, since their actions and even their desire for those actions is part of the chain of events chosen by God. However, Leibniz says the punishment is just because of the sinner's deliberate will to sin. The sinner wills the sin in and of itself, which God does not. Leibniz goes on to speculate that the post-mortem punishment is actually self-inflicted, being the frustrated unhappiness that comes from seeing your enemy (God) successful and happy.

Thus, Leibniz has God as omniscient and omnipotent but still just and loving, whereas the sinners are unhappy as a logical consequence of their willful sin. All this seems pretty traditional Christianity, and Leibniz says as much in his conclusion. Hence, L3 holds. My goal is therefore to find a secondary text that either supports my understanding of the text, or corrects it. Willow (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Priestley says that "evil" is a result of not understanding the entire picture - of not having a God's eye view. In Priestley's theory, understanding natural laws leads to perfection. Once we understand nature, we will be better (eventually perfect). This is one way that Priestley is a millennialist. I don't think that Priestley emphasizes sin nearly as much (another change from "traditional Christianity") - he was trying to flee the Calvinism of his youth (to go biographical). I urge you to read that horribly long article I emailed you. It really does help one hash out Priestley's thought. :( However, I know it is not the most exciting reading in the world. Awadewit | talk 16:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand. Leibniz also asserts that the entire chain of events, seen as a whole (from a "God's eye view"), is incredibly beautiful, the most beautiful chain of events possible, in fact. However, he still allows for "evil in the small", that is, the possibility that individual actions may be evil, such as, you know, murder, rape, betrayal, etc. Does Priestley maintain that such sins are not actually evil — that, say, a rape or a murder is not actually evil in themselves, when seen from the right perspective? I'll confess, that's a little hard for me to understand, although I've heard similar things from Buddhist scholars; how does Priestley understand that? I'll definitely read the article, but any light you could shed would be most welcome in the meantime. Puzzled, Willow (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to understand all of this completely here, but it is my understanding that Priestley believed if we only understood nature better and only saw the world from God's perspective, we would not see murder, rape, etc. as evil, yes. Very weird, I know. Awadewit | talk 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

I thank you for your kind message. I appreciate your generous support; WP needs more positivity like yours. – Scartol • Tok 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leibniz material

Dear Willow: I just saw the results of your impressive Leibniz research at Talk:Joseph Priestley. Such solid, beautifully written work should not be hidden away on a Talk page. Please take a break from chemistry edits and add to Joseph Priestley the conclusions with refs that are appropriate to Priestley by comparison (you do not need anyone's permission to edit the article). Since that will only be a smidgen, please take a longer break from chemistry and work the material into Gottfried Leibniz (which could also be a FA someday) and to other articles that concern the subject matter. Contributing such good work, rather than letting it go to waste on a Talk page, can only improve Wikipedia. Thanks! Finell (Talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

Thank you very much, Finell! Your kind words are very encouraging, and as soon as I get a breather, I'll be glad to contribute to Leibniz. However, I'm in no rush to edit Joseph Priestley until we've reached consensus. There's a special joy that comes when two friends find a truth together and reach some special insight that is deeper and better than any they could've reached alone. If I can wait through winter for my magenta Helleborus to bloom in the snow, I can wait for something more precious and rare. Patiently and serenely, Willow (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

"(an edit summary just for the nice people patrolling Special:Newpages ;)" That was great! Gtstricky (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gt! I really appreciate all the work that you patrollers do. Until just a few weeks ago, I hadn't realized how many awful/obscene articles are created every hour. :( I thought you all might appreciate something fun to read, especially since the new enzyme articles might seem a bit dry. Cheers and a friendly shout-out to all your fellow patrollers, :) Willow (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pages

Thanks. Bearian 18:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Bearian, and welcome to my Talk page! :) Willow 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I loved Mucinaminylserine mucinaminidase. Bearian 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very euphonious, isn't it? It rolls off the tongue much more nicely than "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." ;) Willow 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good woork

Thanks for your effort on enzyme articles. --Nehwyn 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nehwyn, and welcome to you as well! :) Willow 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for all those articles on random enzymes. Without them I wouldn't have gotten off my butt and fixed my whois script! A^RendedWinter 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A Rended Winter, what a picturesque name! I'm glad that these enzyme pages could help you, although I don't see the connection to your script, exactly. Wishing you well and hoping to see you around, Willow 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for the comments about my name. The EC number is the same format as an IP, which is what the script looks for. A^RendedWinter 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diaminohydroxyphosphoribosylaminopyrimidine deaminase

How many points do you get for that at Scrabble? Good work. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Giles; your comment made me really laugh! :) It's an amazing name, no? But there are some other good ones yet to come; how do you like N-acetylglucosaminylphosphatidylinositol deacetylase? ;) Willow 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey you must have read my mind Giles! On the topic of long names, is anyone really going to bother typing that whole thing in to search for it? Is there a redirect that would be an easier search option? A^RendedWinter 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

With a name like that, it's got to be bad for you. I remember, as a kid, always liking the word Floccinaucinihilipilification. For some reason, however, I thought that it meant a disease one got from inhaling volcanic gases. Only when I grew up did I realise that the latter was Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Must be something about long words, I guess... Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Both wonderful words that I never knew before — thank you! I think my longest previously was hemidemisemiquaver, but then I was a music major and not very verbal. How times change! ;) Willow 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Might be quite difficult to play one of those on the piano with any degree of accuracy. Or, indeed, brevity. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but brevity is the soul of wit. ;) Willow 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you done yet?

You're flooding new pages like no other. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm taking a break by working on improving the Universe; the patrollers at Special:Newpages can rest easy — for a little while! ;) Willow 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Did you try to count a record: the number of new articles created during an hour or a day? So, you are pasting the pages from a computer-generated file. A slightly better approach would be making an "Enzyme box" template, like Temlate:Protein and placing all IUBMB, KEGG, etc. links there. Warm regards.Biophys 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Biophys! If you look at one of the pages, you'll see that I did just that, using the templates {{Enzyme links}} and {{Enzyme references}}. That was the great suggestion of our new administrator, David D.! Cheers and happy weekend to you, Willow 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It is good to learn! One only needs to know EC number. I will use it in articles about enzymes.Biophys 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You sure you don't want adminship (I think you were asked and you said no). Kwsn (Ni!) 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I said, "No, thank you". ;) More earnestly, I believe, or at least I hope, that I am doing something good here, something that I can do better as myself and not as an administrator. It might be hard to conceive and seem paradoxical, but I know that a subtle magic would escape from me as an admin and make my journey more difficult and my messages more garbled. Willow 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)