WillowW

WILLOWW's TALK PAGE

WillowW talk page archives Current talk page 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 2011 · 2012 · 2013-14 · 2015-20 Peer review Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion WillowW, you are such a helpful reviewer, I can't help but ask for your assistance again. I have posted Sarah Trimmer over at peer review (another in my series of articles related to eighteenth-century British education). If you time in the next few weeks, would you mind taking a look at it? I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit 05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply That was so fast! Thank you so much for your excellent copyediting and comments. Awadewit 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Dear Awadewit, It was my pleasure, and thank you for your kindness! :) I hope that you'll send me more such fine articles that open my eyes. I always start off daunted or scared of a new subject, thinking I have nothing to say; but when friends coax me out of my shell, I dive in and become enmeshed. But if I keep getting distracted by beautiful articles (and random whims within), I'll never bring knitting or nature to FA! A sorry Willow the wisp indeed, ;) Willow 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply 37 hours in a day Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Since it seems like you have 37 hours in a day (from your numerous contributions) can you take the time to help out on a scientific peer review? Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Geology of Minnesota. I know you aren't a geologist but your expertise on scientific subjects would help. Thanks and good luck on Equipartition theorem, they layout is much better. -Ravedave 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Willow: Thanks for your comments. I had a little fun myself: [1] Kablammo 21:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply S.S. Van Dine Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Thanks for cleaning up the citations in this article. I'm new here, still learning how things work, and I'm grateful, because you gave me a new understanding of how the citation template works, and I will attempt to use it in the future. Much obliged. Accounting4Taste 18:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Hi Accounting! It was my pleasure, and welcome to Wikipedia! :) Thank you for improving that article, which has been percolating in the back of my mind for some time now; it's nice to know that it's in good hands. Looking forward to seeing more of you and your work around Wikipedia, Willow 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply MCB collaborations Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion Hi Willow, with your recent experience of writing the taxonomy bot, I thought immediately of you when I got this e-mail today. TimVickers 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply I'm on it, chief! Let's see what happens with Bicoid 3'-UTR regulatory element. Once we get the look and feel of one page correct — which we should do in collaboration with Jennifer Daub — we can duplicate it for the others. I'm leaving to see my sister graduate from college tomorrow, and then another sister from grad school in a few weeks, so my mail and contributions may be spotty over the next few weeks. I'll do my best to keep up, though. Oh, by the by, X-ray crystallography is the Science Collaboration of the Month; care to join in? Willow 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply PPS. I'll need their permission to release their image under the GFDL. Otherwise, I'll have to re-make it myself; not impossible, but I still have to get packed for my trip. ;) Willow 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007 Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Congratulations on another FA! Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion You're a star! An equipartition of area. Congratulations on another richly deserved FA, Geometry girl. I decided to commemorate the occation by breaking the Wikipedia rules on image layout ;) Have a nice trip! Geometry guy 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Indeed it is well deserved, I read the article three times, realized the depths of my ignorance, and decided that I will never learn all that I would like to learn in this world. A beautifully written article fully deserving of its status. Congratulations once again! Cronholm144 12:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply P.S. What's next?(just kidding, now is the time to rest on your laurels) ;) Congrats, babe! TimVickers 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Way to go! Gnixon 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Thank you, but you all have only yourselves to thank for how well the article turned out. In the beginning, the article was formless and void... and then you came along. :) Isn't this the best part of Wikipedia, working together, shoulder-to-shoulder with the best and the brightest, the kindest and the gentlest, the wisest and most eloquent? I count myself blessed and look forward to many, many more fun articles with you all. :) Willow 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Oh my... *speechless* Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Dearest Willow, I am completely in awe of you after the wonderful poem you gifted me - in my own language! There is much, much I'd like to tell you, and ask you, and yet I don't know where to begin. So let this be just a warm "thank you" for the wonderful surprise, and a promise of a lengthier message through our emails tomorrow. Love you friend. Have a wonderful weekend! Phaedriel - 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Reply Marʉawe, patsi Phaedriel! I just wanted to give you something special for the moving poem you gave me and, more generally, for the warm rays that you send out to other Wikipedians. It was a gift to myself as well; I love learning new languages and, being so new and fresh to me, nʉmʉ tekwapʉ was that much more appealing. In my brief brush, it seems like a beautiful language; I would be very happy if you taught me more phrases or sayings now and then (haamee!). Please go slowly, though; I'm the student in class that everyone has to be patient with. I'll hunt around here for some books that I can learn from as well. :) ʉra, nami Willow 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply When you return Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Willow, I know you will be very busy when you return, but I was wondering if you could peer review The Unsex'd Females when you get a chance. It was written by one of my wiki-friends; she was reticent about using the peer review process because she has been burned over at CfD/AfD (apparently there are some editors over there who don't yet realize that there is women's rights movement). Anyway, I would really like her first time out to be fruitful. If you have the time, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Hi Awadewit! I'll be happy to look over your friend's article! :) A brief glance tells me that its language is elegant and fluid, but I'll need more time to look the article over and think about its architecture. I'll try hard to be helpful. Congratulations on your latest FA, Original Stories from Real Life! You can be really proud of how it turned out. As an aside, I forgot to mention that one of our local fashion experts had some new insights into Ms. Mason's hat, although I suppose that they couldn't be put into the article, being OR. My sister's graduation was really fun. We were all so proud of her, although I had to laugh when she waltzed across the stage in rebelliously fluorescent chartreuse wedges. ;) I was a little depressed this morning when I discovered that someone with whom I thought I had made peace is still angry with me and thinks poorly of me. :( I went out into my garden to find harmony and it was beautiful: the strawberries and blueberries are in full bloom, the columbines and lilacs have just blossomed, and even my recalcitrant peonies are coyly hinting at future blooms. While I was there, a jolly old man with a big white beard stopped by; I had never seen him before, but he seemed wonderfully amused. As it turned out, he was a stroke victim from the nearby old-folks home and couldn't speak; but we conversed nonetheless and, by gestures, he gave me to understand that my garden was beautiful and that I had a green thumb. :) In parting, he gave me the "thumbs up" sign of approval and I went back inside wonderfully cheered up. Even now, I'm still smiling and beginning to muse on the old medieval legends of angels who walk the earth. Another happy fruit of my trip home was that I found my old friend's story; it's from sections 439e-440a of Book IV of Plato's Republic. Thank you for inspiring me to look for it; it was beautiful, sweet way to reconnect with his memory. The tale is nearly as my friend told me, except that the Socrates tells the story of Leontios, son of Aglaion. He's returning from the local port, the Piraeus, when he senses the bodies in the execution place. He wants to look at them, but is also repulsed. After a vain struggle within himself, Leontios runs over, yanking his eyes wide open, and throws his gaze on the executed corpses, saying to his eyes, "There, take a good look, you evil demons, drink in your pretty sight!" An added bonus came when I read further and found the passage (Book V) where Socrates affirms that women should be educated as leaders of society, having equal rights and responsibilities with their male counterparts. More generally, I enjoyed reliving Plato's poetic metaphors, and Socrates' reluctance to say anything that might mislead his friends as "worse than manslaughter" — a good quote for Wikipedia! ;) Glad to be back and to talk with you, Willow 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply X-Ray Crystallography Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion I would rather have a crystallography article written by a random knitter than have a sweater knitted by a random crystallographer :) Physchim62 (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Dear Physchim62, I wish you could hear my laughter over the Internet! :D Your letter will keep me smiling all day long. :) Thanks as always, Willow 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Thanks Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Hi Willow, thanks for the welcome to the world of wikipedia. btw I am really impressed by the range of topics you have contributed to. Jennifer_Rfm 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Thanks for your really kind message, Jennifer! I look forward to working with you very much, and I hope that you'll forgive my "blind spots", which will doubtless crop up. The Rfam project does seem like a good "starter" project for me, having only 574 families; I'm kind of awed by the people who want to add 30,000 human, mouse or plant genes to Wikipedia. Also, I've always wanted to learn more about RNA; I know a little about proteins, but I'd like to learn more about the other folding macromolecule. ;) Willow 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Gell-Mann article Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Hi Willow, can you by any chance find the text from our latest go-round where I cited the Gell-Mann et al article that appeared in SciAm? At the moment I can't seem to locate either the physical (in the "dead-tree" sense of the word "physical") article or the discussion where I cited it -- I've looked back in the history of talk:photon and both my and your talk page for the time I thought it was discussed (mid-August 2006) but no luck. --Trovatore 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Constraint Algorithm Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Hi Willow, Great work on the Constraint algorithm article! I stumbled over it googling a reference, so there are probably quite a few people linking it already :) I myself have done some work in this area (constraint algorithms) and would like to extend the section "Implicit constraint force methods" and would prefer to re-label it "Lagrange-multiplier methods", since all algorithms in this category are just different ways of solving ${\displaystyle g_{i}(\mathbf {q} ^{\star })=0,\quad i=1\dots n_{c}}$ for the ${\displaystyle \lambda _{i}}$, where ${\displaystyle q_{k}^{\star }=q_{k}+\sum _{i=0}^{n_{c}}\lambda _{i}{\frac {\partial g_{i}(\mathbf {q} )}{\partial q_{k}}}}$. are the constrained particle positions. The ${\displaystyle g_{i}(\mathbf {q} )}$ are the constraint equations and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {q} }$ are the unconstrained particle positions. In the case of SHAKE and its cousins, the equations are formulated in terms of a correction on the particle positions. Other algorithms such as RATTLE or MSHAKE (not to be confused with M-SHAKE) use velocities and forces respectively, but use the same algorithm to solve these equations as SHAKE does. The methods differ only in how they solve this system of equations for the ${\displaystyle \lambda _{i}}$, usually using a variant of Newton's method computing ${\displaystyle \mathbf {\lambda } \leftarrow \mathbf {\lambda } -\mathbf {J} ^{-1}\mathbf {g} (\mathbf {q} )}$ iteratively where ${\displaystyle \mathbf {J} _{ij}={\frac {\partial g_{i}(\mathbf {q} )}{\partial \lambda _{j}}}}$ is the Jacobian of the constraint equations. SHAKE solves these equations using a Jacobi-Iteration (i.e. solving the ${\displaystyle i}$th equation for the ${\displaystyle i}$th variable, which means only using the diagonal of ${\displaystyle \mathbf {J} }$) which converges linearly at a cost in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)}$. An early paper by Ciccotti et al. even inverts the Jacobian once and re-uses it for the following iterations. This costs ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{3})}$ in the first iteration and ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{2})}$ in the following iterations and converges linearly, yet at a much faster rate than SHAKE. M-SHAKE (Kraeutler et al.) solves this system of equations directly using an LU decomposition, converging quadratically at a cost in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{3})}$. My own work (P-SHAKE) applies a pre-conditioner to the system of equations and converges quadratically in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{2})}$. LINCS, although not a "traditional" SHAKE-like method, approximates the inverse of the Jacobian using a series expansion, much in the same way a is used for sparse diagonally-dominant matrices. Anyway, what I would add would be along the lines of what I just wrote. Since this is mainly your article, I would like to know what you think before proceeding :) Cheers and thanks for the great work! Pedro.Gonnet 08:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Hi Pedro! :) I'm so happy that you like the article — yay, yay, yay! It was a surprise present for my wiki-friend and partner-in-crime, Opabinia regalis, who had asked for an article on such methods. I want(ed) it to be as nice as possible for her, so nothing would please me more than to have a real expert contribute to it. :) Please feel free to add whatever you'd like to the article, including starting/renaming a section on Lagrange-multiplier methods. I'd named it "implicit methods" originally because Mazur's projection method didn't seem to be a Lagrange-multiplier method, although it's formally equivalent. But I'm really out of my depth here; I'm sure that you know better. I can't wait to see what you'll add; thanks very much in advance for your help, Willow 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Sweater curse Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion I think the best way to avoid another deletion discussion is to approach this from more than one angle. A section discussing this idea from the viewpoint of the psychology of delusional behavior and cognitive bias would remove any possibility that people might regard the article as unencyclopedic. I suggest splitting off the last point of the "Mechanisms" section and making it into a new first section on whether the curse exists at all. A challenge for anybody's NPOV ability! TimVickers 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply It's on my watchlist. TimVickers 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply I don't see any real reason why this article should be deleted, and I said as much in my edit summary. Maybe that will keep the vampires at bay for a little while, I don't know.... Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Thank you, Physchim62! It made me very happy to see that bright orange tag come down. It seemed like an apt time for that, don't you agree? Tim's prose and Awadewit's insights seem to have improved the article, by all accounts, and hopefully allayed Lisapollison's concerns. Please be gentle-worded with her, though; I hold out hope for an eventual friendship, despite our different viewpoints, and would be sorry if she were offended by something on my Talk page. Warmly and gratefully, Willow 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Thanks Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Your diplomacy was well-timed. I was about to lose it completely! TimVickers 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Dear, dear Tim, You should have more faith in yourself, in the springs of grace and good cheer within. If you're going to shed your serenity, let it be for something worthy: the death of a friend, the rejection of a love, the waste and petty tyrannies that outrage the Earth herself, or the denial of your tenure prospects. But for such a person, in such a squabble? Bah. ;) You rescued me from wiki-grief — there's a fine word, no? ;) — please let me reflect some of that light, albeit leavened with humor and humility. Chin up, Willow, who has no sanity left to lose ;) 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Evolution Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion Let me be clear right off the bat--in general, I really appreciate your edits to the article, and I make no judgement with regards to you and/or Tim Vickers. Tim is a Ph.D. student in some field of biology, and he has worked hard to clean up and improve the article. He's done a great job, but given the fact that he's human, he's not perfect by any means. I think that adding a laymen approach here and there is critical to readability, because we can overuse certain terms here and there. What concerned me about your edit was that it took a step below laymen readability. Phrases like "lack of understanding", except in a certain context, sounds unencyclopedic and somewhat POV. I thought that the paragraph was actually less clear with the edits. As I recall, I thought that most of your other edits of that time were not only acceptable but were improvements. I guess if I had more time, I would have been clearer in the summary, and I would have reverted just that phrasing. So please don't take what I did personally. If I thought you were a POV-pusher, it would have been a different conversation!!! Orangemarlin 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Hi Orangemarlin, thanks for your really nice note! :) But now I'm confused — wasn't the "lack of understanding" phrase put back in with your revert? Maybe just now you meant "shortcoming", which I wrote instead? But anyway, if you thought that the paragraph was worse with my edits, that's cool. If it's alright with you, may I change the "demonstrated" wording, though? I think it might improve that paragraph. Willow 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Willow, that's what I meant. Please stick around and help. There are a lot of scientists involved with the article, and I think they (maybe sometimes me too, but I'm about 20 years out from taking a class on Evolution) may get overly technical at times. A clear unbiased eye is always necessary. Orangemarlin 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Kittens Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Yes, I was adopted by a stray cat last Christmas. We called her Odin as she only has one eye. She started getting fat a few weeks ago and nested in my neighbor's garden in an old crate. So far I have counted two kittens in the nest, but there might be more hiding at the back. I'm planning on adopting one - Loki might be a good kitten name. TimVickers 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply One eye and a litter of kittens; the price of wisdom. ;) Loki is a fine name, although Freyja might be better for some kittens; Freyja's chariot was drawn by two cats, no? I'd recommend living with the new kitten for a while before naming him/her, to get to know their personality better; as T. S. Eliot reminds us, The naming of cats is a difficult matter, It isn’t just one of your holiday games; You may think at first I’m mad as a hatter When I tell you a cat must have three different names. Good luck with everything, Willow 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Favor Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion Robert Martineau's Last Chapter Willow, I hate to ask you this, but I have become embroiled in a debate over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works). It is over how to format lists of works for authors and artists. I think that we are just repeating our arguments and not really getting anywhere. If you have the stomach for it, would you mind perusing the debate here and here. Those are the two main places that the debate occurred recently (the one on the MOS style page goes on for quite a while). If you have any insights or any hints on how to resolve the conflict, please let me know. I haven't really ever tried to change a policy and gotten into such an extended debate. If you don't want to get embroiled, I totally understand. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 04:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Also, if you have any free time at all, Plymouth Colony could use a good peer review. The main editor and I have been around the bend a few times now and I've read the article several times now and copyedited it twice, I think, so someone else should step in. Awadewit Talk 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Squeee! I love the picture. When I was little, I once burned my sheets doing likewise; I fell asleep while reading a book under the covers by the light of an incandescent lamp. Luckily, that wasn't the last chapter for me. ;) I read under the covers, too. With a flashlight, though. Awadewit Talk 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply I made a pass at the peer review for Plymouth Colony, but it's just cursory. I've also read both bibliography debates and I'm firmly on your side, but I dread conflict. It chews me up inside, and I'm not very good at it; I'm awkward enough as it is. ;) But I'll try to do some good there as well; you have to forgive me in advance if I say something stupid. :( Let me think for a few more hours about how I should approach it. Willow 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply Thanks so much. Don't worry about the bibliography thing - I don't want to drag people in. Some people live for conflict and others not. I love to debate, but frankly, I do not love to debate nit-picky guidelines. I like to debate larger issues like religion, the energy crisis, nature vs. nurture - these sorts of things. By the way, I wanted to thank you for typing out the long Jewish prayer on my page - it was fascinating. We in the literary profession would say it is full of "tensions." As a literary scholar who practices new historicism, I particularly appreciated the historical evolution of the prayer. Awadewit Talk 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply