User talk:WillowW/Archive18

This will NOT be an Abominable Panic

WillowW, I've had a wretched vision of this Noether thing imploding and recreating a history that perhaps I didn't learn enough from. I want you to know that making FA at this point is much less important to me than keeping everyone sane and healthy. Say the word – at any point – and I'll withdraw the nom so we can clean it up at our leisure.

Seriously.

Please, don't feel like you owe me something. I jumped off this cliff, dragging you with me; you shouldn't get bruised if I don't deploy my chute. I'm going to end here to keep the metaphor from being further mutilated. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, you do care. ;) Don't forget this moment. :)

Please don't worry about me; I was born with wings and I have every intention of unfurling them dramatically as we're falling. At most, this will be a hebdominal panic. ;) With the warmest affections and a sincere promise to warn you before I get all mopey and sad, a strangely sanguine Willow (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If we survive, it'll be because your wings are more powerful than the anvil strapped to my back =) You rock. – Scartol • Tok 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, this won't be our Waterloo. ;) silly and merry Willow (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that list you made! The one you sweat over and labored over and which I referenced on the talk page itself! I can't believe I forgot about that list. Me brain done been getting small. – Scartol • Tok 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, W. I think I can take care of Tony's overlinking problem, but the copyedit thing, and your friend's hospitalization.. I wonder if maybe we shouldn't pull the plug and give ourselves a less stressful venue for fixing this stuff. What do you think? – Scartol • Tok 11:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even in this ghostly netherworld, where we poor shadows often pass through one another without noticing, I can feel the solidity of your caring. You're great. :)

My friend's on the mend, although it's still rather, well, medical. A fresh difficulty struck last night from a totally different direction, too. :( But still I have faith, and would rather not drop the FAC unless it gets rather much worse. Interestingly, no one seems to be criticizing the Math section, which is by far the most incoherent. I had a few breakthroughs last night, sitting by my friend and drinking Darjeeling; perhaps we can yet make something elegant of this "rough-hewn rock". ;) Willow (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

SHHHHHH! Don't you know how FAC works? You're not supposed to admit that you have any reservations about anything in the article! What if someone who's about to support it sees your comment there and decides not to? You're jeopardizing everything! =) I'm still in if you're still in. I have high hopes and although I have to grade 70 essays by tomorrow, I'm confident we can do it. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more! – Scartol • Tok 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Before taking the Emmy books back to the library (they're way overdue), I took one last look and – lo and behold – I found a source for the central simple algebras sentence. Someone up there (or over there) likes me! But I think I truly have done everything I can do at this point. I took care of the overlinking, added all the English translations for her works, and cleared off the finished items on the do-to list. You're our only hope, Obi-WillowW! – Scartol • Tok 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't serendipity grand? It always seems to save me at the last moment. But you're mistaken; it doesn't depend on me. I have a serene faith — or perhaps better, a serene detachment from reality ;) — that all will be well. Maybe our mathematician friends will carpe the diem? Willow (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

translations

Dein Deutsch ist doch super! Anyway, I've checked the translations of the papers of Noether you asked me for. At one point I'm not exactly sure which English word matches. "Aufbau" may mean Construction, i.e. the process of building something, but I think it is the other meaning, which is the result of the construction, along with the interdependences of subtopics, etc. So perhaps you can figure out a good word for this in English.

About the capitalization: in math, it seems uncommon to capitalize every noun. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You have a strikingly poetic user talk, I have to say. So here is a little poem by my fav poet

Befreiung von den großen Vorbildern

Kein Geringerer

als Leonardo da Vinci

lehrt uns

"Wer immer nur Autoritäten zitiert

macht zwar von seinem Gedächtnis Gebrauch

doch nicht

von seinem Verstand"

Prägt euch das endlich ein:

Mit Leonardo

los von den Autoritäten!

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jakob! The poem is wonderful and funny, and I think I catch a glimpse of how much you like paradoxes. I do love poetry, but I think you're catching me on an especially poetic Talk page. On the other hand, I can't imagine living only in prose; it'd be like breathing with one nostril, don't you think? ;) Sure, it's possible, but why would one want to? :)

We won't be able to know for sure what Emmy meant by "Aufbau" until we read her article, but I also think your interpretation makes a lot more sense. :) Ta-ta and I hope we can fulfil every wish and suggestion at the FAC, Willow (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aufbau here definitely means the 2nd option I was talking about (imagine something like a steelframe of a newly built house or so, or an architect's design), I'm pretty sure about that one. The other option sounds very much like pioneers building something out of mere dirt, which is certainly not what she did, thank god. As for poetry-prose: your nostril metaphore is good. Thomas Mann claimed to be a poet, and indeed, his prose is terribly poetic and beautifully carved, so to say. Prolonging your thought up to small fractional part of infinity, we also fortunately dispose of ears, eyes, lips, fingers, feet, and so on and so on. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to stupid reality: there are still a couple of urls missing. For example Beweis eines Hauptsatzes in der Theorie der Algebren. Probably the most convenient method is to sort them by journal, and look up the journals, such as Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik or Mathematische Annalen etc. It's gonna be tedious, though... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Book recommendation

I'm reading a book right now that I think you might enjoy: PopCo (don't worry, the article doesn't spoil it!). It's a slow, leisurely read about math and code-breaking - with an interesting heroine. :) I also found a couple of articles that I think we would have fun working on in the future: Ada Lovelace and Émilie du Châtelet. Let me know if either if these interest you! Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! If you're going to work on Ada Lovelace, you should read the book Zeroes + Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture (ISBN 0-385-48260-4) by Sadie Plant. It's got some good info about her, and it's tied with Manuel de Landa's War in the Age of Intelligent Machines for Best Book about Computers I've Ever Read. – Scartol • Tok 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Awadewit! You're the best. PopCo sounds awesome, and I daresay at least as much fun as the latest Lynsay Sands novel, which ensnared me on my last trip to a bookstore. ;) As to which biography we should work on together — how about both? Émilie is closer to me and maybe to you as well, but for that reason, I'd prefer to do Ada Lovelace first? What do you think? Thanks for the recommendation, Scartol!

For the next maybe two months, though, I'd like to clear off my desk? It's rather piled up with stacks of notes I've taken on sundials, Usher syndrome, and so on, so that I scarcely have room to do calligraphy. :) There's no rest for the wicked, so I'm desperately trying to be good. ;) I'm sure that you, being an English major, can sympathize with voluminous reading and note-taking. :) Willow (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't do anything until September, anyway. I have to write two conference papers on the glory that is Wikipedia! Shall we shoot for the fall and see what happens? I just wanted to mention them because they seemed so interesting. I might read a biography here or there, but I can't do any serious work for a while, either. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly think of anything I'll look forward to with more pleasure — yeay! :) Fall it is, after the main harvest, if that's OK. Like you, I'll try to absorb a biography or two in the meantime. On the side, I'm doing a little research on Newton's theorem of revolving orbits, which I just bet Émilie wrote about. I foolishly imagine that it should be an easy Featured Article, because it has a hypnotizing little animation ("you will ignore my MoS lapses, you will ignore my MoS lapses,...") and, more importantly, almost nothing has been written about it for 350 years; a scholarly source even says so. "How difficult could it be?" Famous last words, but fools will rush in... Willow (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping

You have mail. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I'm sorry, Liz, but there's nothing in my mailbox? Maybe it's just slow in arriving. Anyway, I look forward to getting your letter! :) Willow (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps now? :) Kafka Liz (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just got your e-mail, although it was automatically sorted into a spam directory? That's a little strange, since it's never happened before with e-mails from other people on Wikipedia? Anyway, yes, of course you can send me anything you like. I'm very sorry that Aramgar and I got off on the wrong foot, and I'll make every effort to be more understanding and accommodating. Willow (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Willow. I've sent you another email. I think things will be ok; I've seen much worse "wrong feet" (as it were) that sorted themselves out. The email is more about something else. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Liz and Aramgar,

Thank you for your lovely letters! :) I'm delighted that we'll be working together, too. Life is too short to fret over wrong feet or other such things. I'll do my best to hold up my end, although I feel keenly the shortcomings of my Latin; please be patient with me! Willow (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Quant'è bella giovenezza
Che si fugge tuttavia!
Chi vuol esser lieta, sia;
Di doman no c'è certezza.

Copyedit request

Hi Willow, glad to see you're back editing on Wikipedia. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état, Wackymacs requested that the article be brought before a fresh set of eyes. I was wondering if you could copyedit the article during your spare time. I know you're busy with projects galore, so I understand if you can't take a look at the article. Regards, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Transfer-matrix method

Hi, you wrote the Transfer-matrix method article. It appears that the term is used in more fields of physics than just statistical mechanics (see Transfer-matrix method (optics) and Ray transfer matrix analysis, but the current version of your article is a mix of the generic principle that the different applications have in common and specifics for statistical physics. Maybe you could comment on this issue on Talk:Transfer-matrix method (optics)? Han-Kwang (t) 09:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of great women in mathematics

WillowW: The notes look great! I'm so impressed with the way you always pour yourself into this stuff. I have to be honest, though – this whole FAC thing (taking place while my school year is ending and we're trying to arrange for two people from East Timor to come to our town) has really been doing a number on me.

Right now I feel that the FAC is calm because people are waiting for us to finish addressing the concerns Awadewit raised (and which a number of folks have echoed). I made them the three things on the to-do list at Talk:Emmy Noether – they are the primary concerns, I believe. I feel so inept at approaching these questions that I don't even feel comfortable deciding if the notes you've written address them or not. But I think we should remedy these deficits, say so on the FAC, and maybe even send out some talk page reminders, since I wonder if some people are ignoring the FAC at this point (or at least not responding).

Thanks again for all your hard work on this. I need to take a break from all forms of work for several hours. Unfortunately, I have to go to a meeting. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have to run, too. I have a bunch of stuff prepared to add to the Emmy Noether articles, which I'll try to add tomorrow, or later tonight. "Contributions to topology" will be my first priority, then central simple algebras (the Brauer-Hasse-Noether Hauptsatz and merging those two paragraphs). Willow (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Smashing. Thanks for all your work on it today. (You too, Random.) I know it's a mix of this article and the other stuff I mentioned above, but all the words are kind of running together for me at this point. I feel so useless and confused; I wish I could do more to help out. It seems like for each thing we fix, three more problems are raised. Meanwhile, folks who have opposed based on overlinking and/or prose quality haven't been back to consider the changes we've made.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by working on articles which I feel very knowledgeable about, and for which I've been the sole contributor (or one of them). I just want to let you know that I'm available. If there's anything you want me to take care of, just lemme know. Thanks again. – Scartol • Tok 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I want you to take care of you, and your guests. :) Willow (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just exported my final grades for school, so I've suddenly got some more time on my hands. I'm going to deal with all the photograph hoohah tomorrow, and I've asked Tony1 to have another look at the prose. Anything else I can do? – Scartol • Tok 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Noether

"Were that all our difficulties so easy to fix! :) Really, you shouldn't throw us such slow-pitch softballs. ;)"

Do you mean that because it's easy I should do it? I reckon all the tedious MOS and formating should be done before FAC (and perhaps by the nominators). It's unfair to let others do the tedious work. BTW, there are still many occurrences of the problem:
– like most girls of the time –
– in a formulation that she attributed to her student, Kurt Hentzelt[65] –
– an effort for which she received support from Alexandrov
– including at the University of Göttingen –
– her courage, her frankness, her unconcern about her own fate, her conciliatory spirit –
etc.
Finally, note that when I give a comment, I never intend it as an attack (even less as a softball!, ouch).

Hey Randomblue,

You shouldn't imagine that I was getting angry, or that I was being ironic — I'm not very good at either. And I never imagine that people are attacking me. I was just making a throwaway joke about how easy it was to fix such dash mistakes, and how I wished that all the problems with the article were that easy. Many hard math corrections are left to be made, which will certainly be more demanding than a little dash-surgery. I'm actually in a pretty good mood right now; I'm listening to an album my sister gave me and galloping across the field of your suggestions. :) Willow (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe I'm not following you? I just checked that every parenthetical dash clause is set off by spaced en-dashes, which are allowed by Wikipedia and which Scartol seems to prefer. (I prefer em-dashes, myself.) But perhaps you had something else in mind? Willow (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't get the joke (but now I do :)). With the knowledge that you are like me in never getting angry, collaborating should be a breeze. I'll take a break now, great job with today. Virtual high five! Randomblue (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! :D Thanks for your great message, and the fun time today; you've got a keen eye, and the article's much better for it. I probably won't be able to help much this weekend, but let's meet up next week! :) Willow (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The new section on her contributions to topology is awesome, congratulations! I live in England so it's now half past midnight; I'll go to bed soon. Holiday has started for me, do you fancy meeting up at some specific time tomorrow (I'm happy to meet between 2PM and 11PM English time) to wrap up the article? Hopefully I'll be able to support the FAC afterwards. :) Randomblue (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeay, thanks muchly, Random! :) Your good review is really welcome, since I'd been feeling uneasy about adding new material to the article — people might complain that the article was "unstable" and all that. I'm rather busy today with real-world things, though, so I might not get to address your concerns until next week. I wasn't kidding about getting hundreds of ripe strawberries a day. :) This year is especially good, I'm not sure why; their flavour is incredible, and the season's not half over. I'm going to catch up on my harvesting today, make jam and some strawberry-rhubarb pies, and visit some people in my village who could use some cheering up. There's an older couple a short walk away that I like very much; she's unfortunately very sick, but her spirits are still good. They've always been sweet and helpful to me; it's moving how he takes care of her quietly, steadfastly, good-natured to the core. Willow (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Catullus poems-- sources and Wikiprojecting

Hello, I've tried to improve Catullus 58b, but my local libray has little info on the classics. Is there anywhere I should look for good information? Is there a wikiproject I should tag the talk page for? How, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think 2,000 year old poetry is inherently notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course

If you want anything else, just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Willow? ;) Tim Vickers (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. ;) Will it carry in cyberspace? My whistling comes out all breathy in real life. :P But great whistling runs in the family and I'm determined to master it someday. :) I like trying to whistle sprightly Celtic jigs and the like, say, the "Shepherd's Hey" or the "Irish Washerwoman", if only because it makes my sisters laugh. :) Any recommendations for Scottish practice tunes? Thanks again, Tim! :) Willow (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You, ahhh...hrrrmm...put your lips together and blow. Sorry for interrupting. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative binding again

Loopedgirl is not in favor of hunting lesbians. She knows that it is wrong.

So, Willow, I have to ask: Are you the author of Eight Bullets: One Woman's Story of Surviving Anti-Gay Violence or do you make a habit of citing horrific and freakish hate crimes to justify your own sensitivities? Are you saying that lesbians are hunted? Maybe it's just me but I bet a lot more lesbians enjoy cooperative binding than have ever been hunted. Thanks for the flower. Loopedgirl (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Initially I moved to revert this post as I have been removing vandal posts from you and other IP users recently on Willow's talk page. However, this is not quite vandalism, is it? It's addressed to Willow, and in response to her message to you. I'm a big supporter of free speech, at the risk of personal comfort. However, with the freedom that comes with speaking one's mind, responsibility is attached. People who speak freely may be challenged and ostracized for what they say. But if it's something you truly believe, then that's a price you should be willing to pay.

So your post is here for Willow to read - for what purpose? I cannot assume you are the same vandal as the anonymous IP addresses, but I fail to imagine what inspires a person to leave disparaging comments in the way you have. Can you explain what this motivation is? What reward do you receive or seek from attempting to make someone ashamed of...something? And why one earth should anyone be ashamed of the awe-inspiring work Willow has done here? Few editors I have come across have impressed me as much as she. On the surface, these vandalizations appear to be an extension of a child who destroys what he cannot have. Is it more than that?

I also don't understand the connection to the articles Willow has worked on to her sexual orientation. Are you attempting to Out her? Or is that just an association you would like to place in her readers' minds? If in fact, her sexual orientation is more lavender than not, does that somehow change her contributions to Wikipedia?

This is your golden opportunity to say what is on your mind. Please speak freely. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Obvious troll is obvious. 2) Willow is the one who said she was a hunted lesbian. 3) Enter Internet hate machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.144.181 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Willow said she was hunted. *I* said I was a tremendously prolific lesbo. Me lesbian, not hunted. Willow hunted. Much clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my Talk page has been pretty lively since I last checked it! :) Let me see if I can clear some things up. :) Willow (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Loopedgirl,

I wasn't aware that I was revealing anything about myself; Rebecca Wight was hunted, but I haven't been. I was only trying to open your eyes to the fact that seemingly innocuous images such as this one or this one or the one above might be read as an implicit threat by some people — kind of like stalking, you know? I don't believe that you meant to convey that message, but I wanted to give you a heads-up; if you take time to illustrate your incisive wit more thoughtfully, it might be easier for you, maybe? Your first image was cute and made me laugh! :)

Let me share a secret with you. Wisely or unwisely, I'm not afraid of anyone or anything; neither you or any of my friends should worry about that. If you'd really like to spend the precious hours of your life in hounding someone innocent, that's your decision of course; but please reconsider — I'm not worth your time, am I? Instead, remember Horace's Ode; life is too short, we should all be pursuing happier things: a fire, a glass of wine, sweet memories, dancing and the laughter of a girl in hiding. :)

Soles occidere et redire possunt;
nobis cum semel occidit brevis lux,
nox est perpetua una dormienda.

I'm very sorry that I offended you, and for whatever it was, I apologize. Maybe it's too much to hope that we could be friends, since we're so different; but perhaps we can still respect one another and live in peace? I'm glad that you liked the flower; I have hundreds more in my garden. :) It's hard for me to be unhappy or discontented with life when my garden gives me such beauty so freely, along with a hundred perfect strawberries every day. Serenely, Willow (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTM

Congratulations on having earned your first WP:FL during the last month. You may be interested in nominating your list for consideration as August LOTM and LOTD. It would also be great if you would consider voting on the current set of candidates for consideration as July LOTM and LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blender

I quite like your Kappa goniometer from X-ray crystallography. Could you possibly make the Blender source files available? 204.83.49.58 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC status template

Hi, WillowW; I left you a note at Template talk:FAC status, just in case you're not monitoring the talk page there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note, WillowW; I'm sure things will be much less stressful after the wedding :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dead

Dearest Willow, I just wanted to send you yet another note of thanks and apologize for my absence. Our visit with friends from East Timor has been superb but very busy. I'm sorry for leaving you with the FAC, but I will be back on Sunday – promise! =) I feel like we're nearing the end of the tunnel. – Scartol • Tok 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I found myself awake earlier than expected today, so I took a whack at Randomblue's list at the EN FAC. I fixed everything I felt comfortable fixing (I hope my change to the number of =s on "Historical context" is okay), and I stand ready to take any other action you think I can handle.

I really wish I could help more with the mathematics writing, but instead I must feebly slink away and than you yet again for your dedication and commitment. – Scartol • Tok 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

help for copyedit?

Hello Willow,

from your caring about the minutest details in relation to Emmy Noether's work, I take the confidence to ask you for the following: as the main contributor of group (mathematics) (and, as you know, being a non-native speaker), I would like to ask for your help with a copyedit. The article is in preparation for a FAC. It has achieved Good Article status and has also been peer reviewed. Comments from the Peer Review have been covered, so the article should be content-wise pretty stable. I would particularly ask for your help with respect to "beautiful" wording, and good text flow. I'm aware of the fact that there are many word repetitions and similar issues. As a mathematics text, there are some stylistic pecularities, but I wish the text in the end reads very smoothly. Thanks very much for any help whatsoever! (I also posted to WP:LoCE, and asked Scartol). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really honored that you ask, Jakob, and I'll be glad to help! :) You might've noticed that I re-wrote the lead a few days ago. My thought was that, in order to make Emmy's math intelligible, I first need to start with the elements of her math. Of course, that way, madness lies — or a serious WikiProject on Abstract Algebra. ;)

The group (mathematics) article is indeed excellent as it stands, except in one respect: I'm afraid that it's impenetrable to most non-mathematicians. At least, that's how it seems to me. I'll be glad to make it flowing, but more than that, would you work with me to make it intelligible? But not right away; I'll try to help next week, but then I'm off to help my sister for three weeks. Can you wait until August for the FAC? Willow (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do my best to restrain myself rushing forward. If you think a substantial improvement in terms of accessibility can be achieved, this is worth waiting a while. I guess this issue would have turned up in a FAC discussion anyway. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about subpage

Your subpage User:WillowW/Noether notes is showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion — any idea why? I can see no speedy deletion template there. — Athaenara ✉ 23:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't now. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear it! — Athaenara ✉ 00:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You've at least got to admire their persistence

It's a shame that so many people are so eager to remove the pictures, but no one actually wants to contribute to the articles[1][2][3][4][5]. I don't think there's a single image left on a Catullus poem. While I agree with Aramgar that we should cull some of the stubs and focus more on Catullus' major poems, I think refusing to allow any images on Catullus pages unless we "cite sources indicating that these are important artistical interpretations of the particular poem" is a bit much, especially without consensus. Honestly, when it comes to NPOV violations, you can do worse than add an image to a Catullus poem.--Yolgnu (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apollonius

Hi WillowW, I’ve replied to your points at: Talk:Problem_of_Apollonius#Oldest_significant_result_in_enumerative_geometry.3F

Sorry for the delay!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

General relativity

Thanks for helping with general relativity. Please take care with the re-arrangements, though. Your re-arrangement of light deflection left some sentences dangling. Also, saying that time dilation can explain the bending of light is wrong - that is the heuristic derivation only (the derivation already mentioned in the text), which gives only half of the correct value. Markus Poessel (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse what could be seen as the overly harsh tone of my previous message. I greatly appreciate that you are taking some "rough edges" off the article; I was just taken dismayed at the sub-optimal changes made to the light deflection section; everything else seems fine and a great improvement in style - thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should know that you have tons of slack with me, Markus. :) I didn't read your message as harsh at all, and I totally sympathize with finding that a well-meaning newbie has upset the delicate balance of an article you've been working so hard on. :P I'm sincerely trying to do well and be helpful to you, but I flub up now and then, and I rely on you to both forgive and revert me. ;) Willow (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you'd reply to the message I left on your Talk page and also to the one on Talk:General relativity, I'd be grateful as well. Thanks, Markus! Willow (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I did reply to your messages on the gr talk page, as far as I'm aware (although some remain unresolved). As for your other message, the animation looks nice. I'm wondering whether it might be a good idea to insert more lines, to make the cube look more properly three-dimensional. As for the Kepler problem, yes, varying the impact parameter sounds like a good idea. Or else animate a photon=little dot going by, leaving a trail to show the deflection. I was aware that there were expressions for some of the geodesics, but not of the details. Whatever graphics I've done so far, numerical integration seemed to do the job. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shocking omission

Johann Faulhaber, who I guess was responsible for Faulhaber's Formula (but it does not say it in his bio) was a famous weaver and mathematician who was apparenty a close friend of Descartes and also a Rosicrucian. A weaver mathematician sounds just like someone who you might be interested in...--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me, Filll! :) Unfortunately, I've done only a small amount of weaving; looms are pretty expensive and take up a lot of space. :( Also, weaving doesn't come as naturally to me as knitting; it's hard to keep all those patterns in my head!

Oh, if you had any suggestions for Emmy Noether, I'd be very grateful. Thanks! :) Willow (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your own harvest

The service and the loyalty I owe, / In doing it, pays itself.

Thanks none be mine! I feel like this truly is an example of There if I grow, / The harvest is your own. In the future, I'm going to stay away from articles which will require big sections which I can't understand – no math or science for me (for a while, anyway). You've been a tremendous inspiration during this whole process, and I'm infinitely pleased to have been a part of it. Have fun with Ada Lovelace when you and Awadewit tackle it – do lemme know when it's ready for a copyedit! =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeay! I'll dream dreams sweet tonight, methinks.  :) Thou art a gentleman on whom I build an absolute trust, and I have left to say, more is thy due than more than all can pay. Buoyantly bardly, Willow (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus

Thank you for reviving the Project Catullus. I look forward to working with you on noster Veronensis poeta. How can we ensure that other interested editors join us there? Regards, and thank you for your hard work, Aramgar (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The page looks excellent, Willow. :) You've really done some impressive work there: thank you! Kafka Liz (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea

Arghh! edit conflicts. Helpful hint. You can edit only the introductory section, instead of the whole article, by editing with "&section=0". --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, Pete! I'm on to the next sections, though, so it should be safe. Thanks for the tip! :) Willow (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea section order

Just alerting you that I'm about to make a section order change, so that we don't get an edit conflict. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, I think that I'm done for now, anyway. I just wanted to try to clarify that section for Awadewit. :) Willow (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. I wasn't sure how much your were going to do, but I've made that change now. It just makes more sense to describe the size and physical appearance of archaea before discussing the problems with visibly identifying their fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

Could you help out with the notes at Mary Shelley? We used the same refgroup system that the action potential article uses, so I thought maybe you could help us resolve the issue that has arisen at the FAC. SandyGeorgia has asked if the numbers can be letters - do you know how to make this change? Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. I made such a system, but I never got the chance to test it, since the other one was adopted ahead of my solution. The other solution was better than mine in many ways, since it was more flexible and general, e.g., allowing the grouping of references and references within individual sections. Unfortunately, it seemed also more complicated to use than mine, which seemed to me a drawback. If you stick with the present solution, as far as I know, there's simply no way to change the output without changing the code and re-initializing it on all of the English Wikipedia. If you ask him nicely, Steve might be willing to do that for you, or help me to get my solution adopted; he seems very nice. Although I wrote the code, I have not the foggiest notion of whom to ask to get it adopted, or even tested. On the other hand, it might not be so easy to change Steve's solution, since I had to write an internationalization file for my solution; the world has many forms of letters, after all. The simplest solution might be to ask Sandy whether the change is absolutely necessary; the prefix "note" is pretty unambiguous, if a little clumsy. Please let me know what you'd like to do. I should add that I'm leaving Saturday for my sister's, and I'll be gone for over three weeks, so I don't have much time to do anything. Willow (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ack, I didn't realize I was opening a can of worms until I saw the subsequent note from another reviewer. Perhaps just use the system at Gettysburg Address? What concerns me is that other editors can't edit those notes, as there is no documentation. I couldn't find anything, and others need to be able to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no difficulty in editing existing notes, because they work exactly like any other <ref>. To create a new footnote, you have to insert "group=note" inside the tag as in <ref group=note>. It's pretty straightforward, even if Steve hasn't popularized his method; no one will be excluded from editing, it seems to me, unless they unwisely delete the "group=note" dealie within an existing footnote. ;) Willow (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there documentation anywhere? I sure wish I hadn't walked into this just when it was ready for promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know whether Steve made any or not. I know how it works, and I've explained it to a few other people, or rather alerted them to its use, but that's about it for me. As you see, it's a pretty small change, so it might not require much documentation. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful on this. :( I also have to leave for work very soon. Willow (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(update) I added some documentation this morning at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Hoping that it's helpful, Willow (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just heard about this discussion on my talk, unfortunately I've been a bit busy lately, so I haven't had time to do as much with it as I'd like. The group parameter is live now, but I guess not well documented yet, so I may need to track down the right places to add some of that, but as you said it's pretty simple. Unfortunately, my patch to create a note tag, which would be like ref but with letters (based in part on WillowW's code/advice) was rejected because they don't want two tags that do similar things. At some point I'll probably try to add some wrapper class, so that <ref a> would call the new lettered class, but without the a it would use the current, numbered system. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Steve,

It's such a relief that you're here! I've been trying to fill in for you, and I hope that you think I did an OK job and didn't misrepresent anything? Anyway, all of a sudden it's a crisis again, with my friend Awadewit's FAC for Mary Shelley (a breathtaking piece of work I think, a labour of love) being held up because of doubts that your code will continue to work indefinitely. I've tried to reassure them on that score, that you as a professional programmer would never make something backward-incompatible with future extensions, but it'll be much better coming from you. Then there's the hoary haggis of replacing the group identifier with alphabetical tags. I really have to go, but if you could set them straight on the seven different pages where they're discussing your solution (see my contribution history), I'd be very grateful. Ta ta until a few weeks from now, Willow (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wedding wishes section

• Good luck! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim! :) Thoughtful and alert as always, :) Willow (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, what is this? Who is getting married? Clue Moni in. --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Willow is finally making an honest man out of one of her bevy of suitors. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Schwa? Shut up! Must find reliable source with which to verify this claim!! [citation needed]!! --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop, stop, you're making me laugh too much! :D It's my sister who's getting married, and to a fine young man. :) As for me, I don't think I have any dishonest men in my bevy of suitors. ;) Whether that's because I'm attracted only to the noble-hearted, or because I'm utterly blind to the shortcomings of my friends and loved ones, I really couldn't say. :) Willow (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm calm now. You had me out on the ledge contemplating the speed of my body hitting the pavement. That's what happens when I read such romantic articles you and your ilk propogate. The Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe article had me thinking deathbed accusations are attractive indeed. I shall try one soon. At any rate... I thought about emailing this to you, but I must confess, unless you read every of my talk page messages with unfailing interest (which I don't even do, so I don't blame anyone) I barely announced that I, in fact, do have impending nuptials on my horizon. August, California, short and sweet, and anticlimactic. The two of us, a witness, an employee of the county, and all is done. Finally. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, very old men like to talk to me about their lives; it's a little odd, but I kind of like it as well. I met one in a park one sunny day, and after a while he started telling me stories from his 65-year marriage to a wife just recently departed, which was kind of magical; we seemed to be together in our own little world, isolated from the busy park, and our conversation felt — sanctified, somehow. Just before we parted, he told me ever so earnestly that marriage is the hardest work that anyone could do, but also the most rewarding. I've thought about that a lot since then, how hard it is to really connect with someone, to really know and appreciate and understand someone. We fish a few fishes out of the oceans of each other, and imagine that we've seen it all, never knowing the leviathans that swim in the deep. :)

So good weddings have to anticlimactic, since there's that long, beautiful, rambling road of marriage ahead. I wish you both every joy on that road, more fervently than words can say, Willow (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm of the opinion that everyone should have to wait for four days in the rain, sitting outside the courthouse just to pay $90 for a license and stand in front of a justice for 20 minutes to get married. Rather puts the ceremonial aspect in perspective with the entire commitment. Would drastically reduce both marriages and divorces. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but somehow people who profess to want to "defend marriage" never seem to notice divorce as an issue they might want to address. That has always confused me, considering their stated aim. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Global counter variables and discursive notes

I've just posted on this topic Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Global_counter_variables_and_discursive_notes and thought you might be interested. Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)