User talk:WillowW/Archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 JJ 2 Donation in a good cause? 3 Glucosamine-1-phosphate N-acetyltransferase 4 UDP-N-acetylglucosamine 1-carboxyvinyltransferase 5 :( 6 A word of advice please 7 Request 8 Request II 9 Enzyme articles 10 Thanks for your excellent work on Enzymes 11 You're too nice 12 One of these days 13 You are truly am-ase-ing 14 UTP-xylose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase 15 thank you for Euler and Maupertuis 16 Emma Goldman review 17 AfD nomination of Phosphoinositide phospholipase C 18 Peer review request 19 Textile arts 20 Away until the New Year 21 General Kepler 22 Joseph Johnson and FAC 23 Holy cow!! 24 Triple crown 25 MLA 26 Introduction to Evolution 27 archaea genera list

[edit] JJ

Just wanted to let you know that the peer reviews are starting to roll in on our friend at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard. :) Awadewit | talk 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Markus has kindly offered one of his finely detailed reviews as well. Awadewit | talk 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• That Andrews book is incredibly helpful for the Analytical Review article. I'm going to be adding quite a bit. Things will get a messy for a while until we can go back and make things flow again. The book also has a lot of info on the Anti-Jacobin Review, if you ever want to do that article. I know we had mentioned its sorry state at one time. Awadewit | talk 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've put Analytical Review up for a peer review, if you're interested. Awadewit | talk 07:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'll be happy to! Unfortunately, I had a small but bloody accident involving my right hand last night; it's healing and not painful, but it makes typing difficult and has ruined me for hand modeling. ;) I'll have to be pithy in my review, but I hope you won't think my terseness is from any lack of warmth. :) Still hoping to reconcile cosmology and cosmetology someday, Willow (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, what I meant was that people will be commenting on our work, if you're interested, not that you need to review it! (Is that a reference to Zoolander?) Awadewit | talk 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, no, I've never seen Zoolander — is it good? I'm still eager to see The Golden Compass, after you introduced me to the story. In the cosmology/cosmetology reconciliation, I was just riffing off my work on the universe and my fashion interests and thwarted ambition as a hand model. ;) The healing will be a little challenging, since , cat-like, I'm not allowed to get that part of me wet for a week; showering is a very funny undertaking. ;) Thanks for all your devotion and hard work on JJ and the related articles, by the way! I'll try to make contributions someday. Hoping your trip home was/is good and thinking of thee, Willow (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Should the "Donations" page be updated? I wasn't sure if I was understanding that aright.

• Oh, yes, just go ahead and do so. I haven't gotten around to it yet because I am swamped with grading. Finals AND final papers. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Sorry, I take it back — it is painful; part of the wound is just underneath where I usually rest my mouse-hand. I may have to go more slowly with this review. :( Willow (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is all about voice-recognition software. :) Heal fast! I hope it isn't too serious, otherwise your holiday cookies may be more appropriate for vampires. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The doctor who stitched me up said it would probably take roughly 10 days to heal.  :( The idea of Buffyverse cookies is really appealing to me, since I'm a fan of Gothic vampire romance novels — hey, why is that a redlink? ;) Usually, I make biscotti, though, which is going to be difficult, since it requires strong kneading and compressing with both hands. If you want to try it, Julia Child's recipe is incredible. Ta ta for now, Willow (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (Susie Southpaw)

[edit] Donation in a good cause?

Maria and I were wondering if you would be willing to donate $5 or $10 towards a Cervantes pot. We recently discovered that the Spanish wikipedia has FAs on a number of British and American writers and texts, but we have none on any Spanish-language writers or texts. So, we thought maybe a push at the reward board would do the trick. See our discussion here. Awadewit | talk 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Or alternatively your could win this contest and donate (X% of) that money to the pot. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Already trying to win with Jane Austen. :) (Trying to reimburse myself for all of the money I've spent buying books to write the JA article!) Awadewit | talk 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Two of my favourite people here at the same time - yeay! :) It seems rather unlikely, but if a new universe could win something, I would give all its worth as a prize for bringing lupus erythematosus up to Featured Article status. If that came true, it were a better prize for me than anything; I don't like wolves in the house. :( Very affectionately, Willow (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. The $30 dollars for Neruda, Cervantes and Lazarillo de Tormes are winging their way to thee, Awadewit. :) Willow (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glucosamine-1-phosphate N-acetyltransferase

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glucosamine-1-phosphate N-acetyltransferase, suggesting that it be deleted because my hand hurts from repeatedly clicking "Mark this page as patrolled."

Just kidding, of course! Wow, I would never have guessed how many enzymes there were. —Travis^talk 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Travis! Your message was almost deleted because my face hurt from smiling too much. ;) Were you happy with the first set of acyltransferases? I hope so, because there's a few more yet to come... ;) Willow 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UDP-N-acetylglucosamine 1-carboxyvinyltransferase

G'day WillowW, I was cruising the new pages and marked several of your articles as "patrolled". I did put a "cleanup" tag on the article linked to above. My reasoning for this was that I felt the names of the other enzyme classes being in bold looked odd. It was kind of like the page was shouting out at me? Perhaps the article would look better with bold removed from those entrys? Or perhaps italics might be better? Sting_au Talk 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sting_au! :) Yes, I'm not quite sure what to do about that one. All those names are synonyms for the article title, which I've been boldfacing them in other enzyme articles, just as we would any other synonym. But I agree that that page looks egregiously bad, because the enzyme has so many synonyms. :( Let me brood over what to do about it, and ask a few of my fellow MCBers what they think. Thanks and welcome to my Talk page! :) Willow 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this to a footnote, which still looks a bit odd but retains legibility in the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :(

Oh, Willow. What, precisely is going on in this crazy, mixed-up world of ours? Awadewit | talk 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 :( indeed, this is certainly a sad state of affairs, but the arbitration case itself is perhaps more enlightening (assuming you want to wade through the mess o_0). —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 13:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I still need to read up on this; I'm dashing about with Christmas things right now, and haven't had a breather all day. It does look strange, indeed, although we all know that the community of Wikipedians is, umm, heterogeneous. As Makarios said, the heart has many chambers: rooms of luminous angels, and dark workshops of wickedness. :( Willow (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A word of advice please

I've been asked to attempt to broker peace at post-abortion syndrome and steer a new NPOV path. I know nothing whatsoever about this, being broadly indifferent to the abortion debate. I have though noticed in people I know that mild short-term depression/anxiety/guilt seems a frequent consequence of abortion. (Why not? Depression/anxiety is a common consequence of heart attacks. Us humans are emotionally fragile things.) So, do you believe such an outcome is possible? Or are positions too entrenched? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi ROGER,

As your friend, I'm always ready to help you out, but it would be with deep misgivings. Although I haven't read the article and its Talk page through, I don't think I can be impartial, and I sincerely doubt that I'm the right person for this undertaking. I believe in many, many things, in things real and unreal, seen and unseen, in death and guilt and redemption and life/love enduring — but I don't believe in post-abortion syndrome. At least as I understand that term. Nevertheless, I'll read the article and give you the best advice and insights that I can; please give me leave to think it over until next week, though, when I'm less busy. Faithfully yours, Willow 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. the background is that I was approached out of the blue to try to solve some problems on that page. I have never edited or commented there, nor until yesterday heard before of PAS. Anyhow, I've declined the request. I don't have much spare time; it's not my sort of subject; and I'm really not interested in gladiatorial editing involving political hot potatoes (gloriously mixed metaphors there, no?). The outcome I was referring to earlier, by the way, was brokering peace (I've just realised from your reply how ambiguous that statement was). Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, ROGER. :) I did understand the sense in which you meant "outcome", but I was being deliberately a little ambiguous myself (perhaps you can understand why?) despite being unusually forthright (for me) at the same time. I would've stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you to wage peace, reckless and undaunted, but I'm glad and relieved that we don't have to. :) Willow 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Any advice on improving the universe would be welcome. :) Willow 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Take in small doses with a large pinch of salt. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I was wondering if your all-powerful fingers could whip up a stub on EC 2.4.2.31, to fix a redlink in the article I'm writing on Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. No urgency though, I've piped the link to EC 2.4.2 for now. All my best Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim!

I'd be happy to, but could you wait until next week? I'm really busy with Christmas preparations, charity toy collections and whatnot; what little time I have on Wikipedia, I'm lavishing on improving the Universe, in the hopes of someday tempting someone to bring lupus erythematosus up to Featured Article status.

I recently saw a beautiful winter setting, a forest and a river bedaubed with white snow and gold, and I thought of you. :) Hoping your holidays are magical, Willow 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ;) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say how great it is just to reach out and feel confident that any enzyme I care to mention will have an page. This is such a huge help when writing articles! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim! :)

I found a few moments today and made a stub for NAD(P)+-protein-arginine ADP-ribosyltransferase; that's the one you wanted, right? I'll try to finish the remaining enzymes in EC 2.4 today or tomorrow; then it's on to 2.7 and maybe 3.4, if I can muster the courage to tackle ~350 proteases. Eeep! :P Willow (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request II

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

Hi and happy holidays, Jay!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Enzyme articles

How are you creating articles for enzymes so quickly? Glycosaminoglycan galactosyltransferase was at 16:52, Glycoprotein-N-acetylgalactosamine 3-beta-galactosyltransferase was at 16:51, Glycoprotein 6-alpha-L-fucosyltransferase was at 16:50, ... « D Trebbien (talk) 01:07 2007 December 11 (UTC)

That's easy to answer, D! :) It's not magic; it's just that I've prepared and proofread all the articles in advance, so it's easy to cut and paste them into Wikipedia. Every so often, I overlook one, or forget to do the assessment for the MCB WikiProject, or make some such mistake, but I always try to go back and fix it. My friends at the MCB WikiProject also catch and fix things that I miss, for which I feel very lucky.  :) Willow (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your excellent work on Enzymes

I'd like to know how you're able to document all these various enzymes on Wikipedia so quickly.

The effort you take to do this is appreciated by lots of people.

Sinclair ^{talk/contribs} 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sinclair! I really appreciate your kind and encouraging message. It may seem mysterious, but I've been working on these articles offline for some time now, even if I'm uploading them just today. I'll try to keep up with it, and get most of them done by Christmas; we'll see how it goes. Only a few families of enzymes are left to do, but they're also the largest and most difficult ones, and I've lots to do for Christmas. Unfortunately, what with all the knitting and typing, my hand is beginning to hurt again, too; I may have to quit early tonight. :P Thanks again for the encouragement, :) Willow (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're too nice

But I understand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just cringed when I read your experiences. It made me very very sad.--Filll (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are wonderful, too. :) I'm really glad that I stayed; I would've missed out on so many sweet friends and fun! And, honestly, the episode was just a tiny tempest in a teapot, quickly over; as I'm sure you both know, there are much worse things in the real world than losing a week's work. It was also helpful for me to see a broader swath of Wikipedia, not merely the rosy, friendly little corner of it that I had known up until then. :) It was a little like turning twelve and waking up to the world — nothing at all to be sad about. :) Willow (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are low stress parts of WP. And high stress parts. I often take vacations from the high stress topics by writing biography and geography articles. It is like a breath of fresh air and reminds me why I like Wikipedia. But I also can look with pride at the controversial articles I have helped with and the positive impact they are having. --Filll (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One of these days

You are going to create an article called di-methyl poppycockystase, and I will blindly patrole it too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's cute! :D But you shouldn't lead me into temptation... ;) Thanks muchly for all your hard work, too, and that of your fellow patrollers; it's very much appreciated. :) Willow (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yours are easy. They just go "Yup, another good one". Nor are the speedy candidates really. The real horror starts with all the good faith articles, that have something going for them, but require massive cleanup. More often then not, I just slap a cleanup tag on, but that's not really a good option either, since articles for cleanup has a backlog in the order of magnitute of 1000 articles aswell. In the mean time, if I had to venture a guess, we're running a backlog on newpage patrol of around 100 pages a day. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking something along those lines, Martijn. Note my comment above :D —Travis^talk 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are truly am-ase-ing

Just laughing watching your new pages come in... Ψν^Psi_nu 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• secondary side note... now that I've had a peek, speaking as a former flunkee of Organic Chemistry, your pages frighten me... who did you offend so to get stuck with this horrible task? :) Ψν^Psi_nu 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not so bad, you know; it's even kind of exhilarating. :) I get into this reckless and fey mood, where I'm bathing in enzymes and don't want to surface again. The only way to master something difficult is to throw yourself at it completely, holding nothing back; the irresistible force meets the immovable object and somewhere, something yields and both are changed. :) Willow (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but 300+ enzymes? Wow. You've got the determination of a saint. Well, excellent work, and you've succeeded in convincing me that my grade 11 AP chemistry class is teaching me nothing. P.S. I get the -ase reference in the title... where are my bonus marks?

:P Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

+20 :) Thank you for the encouragement, Master; it's sorely needed and much appreciated. :) If you ever want to chat about your grade 11 AP chemistry — ummm, well, I'm probably not the right girl for that, but I'll be glad to help if I can. Right now, I feel as though I'm dreaming with my eyes open, surrounded by the whispers and flickering lights of phosphorylations; it won't be much longer now, and the wicked can rest at last. :) Willow (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UTP-xylose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UTP-xylose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://us.expasy.org/enzyme/2.7.7.11.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) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, drat — let me see what the matter is...fixed, methinks. Willow (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you for Euler and Maupertuis

Hi--

I just wanted to thank you for generously providing translations of Euler's Additamentum II and some of Maupertuis' writings on the Principle of Least Action. I was planning to write something on that myself, but not anywhere in the near future. Luckily, a better scholar has done it already. That is terrific work; I'm always happy to find someone with an interest in the history of physics. Keep up the great work.

Also: do you have access to a copy of Jakob Hermann's Phoronomia? I've been trying forever to get hold of it, but here in the States they don't lend it to other libraries, and the projected reprint of it in the Bernoullis' Opera Omnia is not due to come out for another few years.

--Desargues (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, Desargues and welcome to my Talk page! :)

I'll look for Phoronomia, but I'll confess that I'd never heard of Jakob Hermann until I started translating the documents surrounding the principle of least action. My local libraries are rather limited, too. Still, I'm hopeful since my life is marked by serendipity; I always seem to find things just as I need them. So perhaps I'll stumble across Phoronomia in an antique book store somewhere. :) Keep up the good work yourself, Willow (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Goldman review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Scartol,

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

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

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

[edit] AfD nomination of Phosphoinositide phospholipase C

I have nominated Phosphoinositide phospholipase C, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phosphoinositide phospholipase C. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've addressed your concerns! Thank you for alerting me to the overlap between our two articles, and welcome to my Talk page. :) Willow (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice merger of the material I must say. Kudos! Wisdom89 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Hi, WillowW,

I saw your name on the list of volunteer reviewers and wondered if you would be available to review Jimmy McAleer, a B-class sports biography that appears to be close to GA quality. I understand that organized sports is not among your areas of interest, but this article might appeal to your sense of history. The subject was a late 19th- and early 20th-century baseball figure who could be described as colorful. Any recommendations to improve this article would be much appreciated! Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits (and edit summaries) on Jimmy McAleer! I appreciate that you took the time. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Textile arts

You had an interesting comment I'd like to follow up on. Your idea for demonstrations like picots runs parallel with a list I'd like to start about different crochet stitches and basic motifs. The main challenge to expanding the crochet coverage is radically different terminology from country to country. Some help from graphic artists would be a boon because the notational symbols are the same even when the text names refer to totally different stitches, depending on what country the reader is in. If a few people get together we might be able to create a set of featured lists for embroidery, knitting, and crochet stitches. Interested? Durova^Charge! 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova and welcome to my Talk page! :)

Of course I'm willing to help with that, although I'm not sure if I understand the basic idea; can I make a guess? I could imagine how you might have a featured list with an illustration and explanation each for chain stitch, single, half-double, double, triple, etc. crochets. Is that the basic idea?

For knitting, the counterparts might be slip stitch, yarn over, picking up stitches; knit/purl (same stitch, just seen from two sides), left- or right-plaited stitches; dip stitch and general knitting-into-the-fabric stitches; simple cable crossover and some of the more fussy/dense/inflexible multiple crossover stitches; casting on and off, increases and decreases; gathers, clustering, binding, and welting; weaving, tufting, bobbles and beading and all that. It seems like a lot to cover in one list; is that what you had in mind, though? I'd really love to do something useful, so please let me know what you think would be good. :) Willow (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. On the illustrations, I'm bad at art and I don't have a camera — yet. :) I downloaded some free 3D modeling software that I might be able to program into showing an arbitrary knitted fabric with needles, but that might be significant work; fools rush in, etc. ;)

For the crochet side I've been making some swatches of the basic stitches. In U.S. terms that's chain, single, half double, double, triple, and double triple. Concepts to add would be:

• Turning chains
• Increases and decreases
• Extended stitches
• Crab stitch
• Basic motifs: v, shell, bobble, popcorn, puff, mesh, fishnet, picot
• Insertion point variations: ribbing, post, crossed, spike
• Rounds (with basic increase formulas)
• Basic granny squares

I've found it's straightforward to photograph my work, crop it, and upload to Commons. Am using unmercerized cotton ecru for this on a 4mm hoook. Some of the same stuff is at the granny square article. The only hurdle I haven't overcome yet is notational diagrams. People who already know this stuff can get by on photographs; everyone else needs international symbols too. Durova^Charge! 10:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova,

Sorry for being dense, but I'm still not sure that I get your idea? I'm all behind the idea of illustrating the basic stitches and motifs of crochet and knitting on the Commons, although that'd be hard for me now, having no camera as yet. But I wasn't sure whether I understood the rest — was the idea to make illustrated lists rather than individual articles?

The other goal you had in mind seemed to be getting individual images for the various knitting and crochet symbols? Or maybe you'd like me to convert a pattern motif written in English into an image of the corresponding symbols? I think I could write a program to do that without too much difficulty, although it'll probably have to be in the new Year, after I return from visiting my family for the holidays. Willow (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea I had was to create a table formatted list. Separate articles wouldn't be practical because the same terms have different meanings in different countries. I'll give the thing a quick start to convey the idea. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick mockup of the basics: List of crochet stitches. Other than filling in the schematic column, two things need attention with this first table set. It's missing an entry for the flat stitch and I need to flip these examples in Photoshop. Over 90% of crocheters work right handed and I'm part of the minority. I can fix those points later; this is basically to get the idea across. Durova^Charge! 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand now, but how can I help? Should I draft up images of the various knitting and crochet symbols? I think I could do that, but onlywhen I get back in the New Year. Happy holidays and thank you so much for your leadership on the textile arts articles! :) Willow (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That would really help, thank you. :) Happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 20:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away until the New Year

This user is currently away on a vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I wish I had time to write to you all as I intended, but you know that you're not far from my thoughts. :) Happy holidays from a harried Willow (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Kepler

Hej fröken Willow. Jo tack bara bra, lite korta dagar vid den här tiden på året dock. Kan man tyska så är inte svenska så svårt antar jag, även om ordföljden är annorlunda. Things I would like to know related to the article Kepler problem in general relativity is if there is some kind of analytical expression for the orbital velocity (I guess for circular orbits it is the same as classically). To fully know the orbit one should know both the shape of the orbit and the orbital speed. I also would like to know more about orbit decay due to gravity radiation emission,if this occurs much less for circular then for elliptical orbits, perhaps an orbit close to the schwarzschild radius decays very fast due to this phenomena, it would be nice to have it quantified. There is a formula on gravitational wave that could perhaps be used but I do not know if it is supposed to work only in the weak field limit.

Regarding non-euclidian geometry and various related aspects of mathematics I do not have much of a clue, I think you are certainly more well-qualified in that area. I think that if you choose ζ in the region you suggest the last equation of the paragraph "Orbital solution using elliptic functions" becomes a complex number and to have "psi(r)" in the form of a complex number does not make much sense. I think that you could show that no matter what choice of initial conditions you choose (velocity, position) ζ does not end up in that forbidden zone.

Om du varit snäll kommer säkert jultomten med många fina julklappar. God jul och gott nytt år.Agge1000 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Johnson and FAC

When you get back from vacation and have a chance to add whatever it was you were going to add to JJ, let me know. I think it is just about ready for FAC, but I don't want to take it there without the material you have. Awadewit | talk 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy cow!!

Did you know you had 4638 edits in November? Man oh man! --Filll (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triple crown

Your Majesty, Filll noticed that you deserved one of these. Happy holidays and happy editing. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 08:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MLA

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

Hey A! :)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

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

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

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

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

[edit] archaea genera list

hi willoww,

thanks for the archaea genera page, i cleaned it up a bit. mostly i removed multiple identical wiki links. if you link every occurence of "genus" for example, this put an unneccessary load on the wiki server, so most of the time it's best to link only the first occurence, or a few that are far apart. cheers :) --Sarefo (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)