WillowW
Archives through 2006
Hi from Honeybee :)
Hi, Willow! Forgive my belated reply to your kind note - it's taken me this long to figure out how to do it! ;~) Let me know if I still haven't figured it out! lol
I'm really glad to be here to provide my over 35 years of knitting experience to others, esp. to the relatively new online knitting community. There is so much information I've gleaned from traditional books and magazines (from the last two "waves" of knitting popularity) that is lost to those who only google to find out how to do things; putting it here will bridge this (generation) gap, I hope.
I was "sent" here by Brenda Dayne of Cast-On (knitting podcast), who, in previous podcasts, encouraged knitters to input the vast wealth of knitting information to be found (both in books and magazines and online) so it could be accessed in one place.
Looking forward to reading more, discussing more, figuring out more, and adding more!
Honeybee33 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Honeybee, it's so nice to hear from you! :)
- Your casting-on work is great — yeay! There's one thing, though, that we should think about doing. I've been lame about adding references to the knitting articles; I wrote most of my knitting articles early in my time here and didn't know how to do references, or even that they were necessary. I'd be happy to add the references now if you want to keep on adding the main material; or, if you're interested in how to do it and have particular books, etc. in mind, it's covered in the Help pages under "Citing sources". I use the <ref>...</ref> approach, where the "..." is usually a cite template like
- {{cite book | last = Tanford | first = C | authorlink = Charles Tanford | coauthors = Reynolds J | year = 2001 | title = Nature's robots: A history of proteins | publisher = Oxford University Press | ___location = Oxford | pages = pp 100-200}}
- which produces something like
- Tanford, C (2001). Nature's robots: A history of proteins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. pp 100-200.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
- Tanford, C (2001). Nature's robots: A history of proteins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. pp 100-200.
- Your arrival is really timely, since we're thinking of bringing Knitting to Featured article (FA) status in January/February. FA status is the highest status that an article can reach at Wikipedia, a very worthy goal but also very demanding, because you have to cover the subject completely and provide references for everything. Luckily, the community of knitters here seems really nice and friendly, so we probably won't have many disagreements, which can sometimes make FA's difficult in other fields.
- I'm not likely to write much over the next few days; I'm as sick as a dog and rarely crawl out of bed :P Have fun and please write again! 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Willow, thanks for the proper reference format! I started to add a few new references to my cast-on work, but assumed the references already there were correct and repeated the formating! I'll go back and change it so it's proper.
I found the discussion page where you're all talkin' about the FA thing - I'm excited to be a part of it! Consider me "on board." Honeybee33 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great! I can't wait — this is going to be fun. :) Willow 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Excellent work! :) The articles would also benefit from some nice public-___domain pictures, don't you think? Unfortunately, I don't have a camera, and borrowing one is kind of, ummm, involved for me. Do you or Brenda have friends who are good at taking pictures — maybe you are? The public-___domain thing is really important, though. It's best to upload pictures at the Commons, which you can get to from the Main Page (look near the bottom under "Wikipedia's sister projects"). Good luck! Breathlessly, Willow 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I just reviewed this for GA and it's breadth and importance made me think immediately that you would enjoy editing it. TimVickers 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind suggestion; I'll do my best, once I have a moment's time. Willow 14:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
GA is one person's decision, in this case mine, based on if the reviewer thinks the article fits the GA criteria. The process is outlined here. I'd be glad to help out with the evolution/diversity of life/biology sections, this could be a great interdisciplinary article. Send me a link once you've got a draft going. TimVickers 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I started making notes here, but it's still way too preliminary. Also, I have to get ready for traveling, so I won't be able to work much more tonight. I do agree, this could be a wonderful interdisciplinary article and a lot of fun to write! :) Talk to you soon, Willow 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Genetics glossary in mainspace
I finally wrote some additional definitions (rather poorly, probably, trying to be very brief) for Template:Genetics glossary and added it to the gene article. What do you think? I'm a little apprehensive about the positioning, since putting it at the top requires the browser to reformat the whole page every time you expand/hide a box, but putting it at the bottom of the article isn't very useful. I almost want a floating div, but floating expandable boxes will probably make old browsers faceplant.
As for the content, do you think that's enough basic definitions? Anything obvious I missed that would be useful (or anything excessive in there)? I'll post this on User talk:Filll too, since he was the original impetus behind the idea - I imagine the need for the very stubby introduction to genetics is largely obviated? Opabinia regalis 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm so lucky to have a friend like you — not least because you use words in such wonderful ways ("faceplant"! "obviate"!) :D
- I really can't say what words should go into the glossary, since I don't have a purview of the gene articles, or indeed of genetics itself. I've only known a few geneticists and they never seem to want to talk shop with me, maybe because they think I wouldn't understand. :( I mainly know the field as a useful way of identifying proteins that are involved in some function and should be studied further.
- There may yet be a purpose for the introduction to genetics article although, in its present form, its purpose has been — largely obviated. :) Do you know the metaphor of the lotus flowers in the pond? The Buddha taught that souls are like lotus flowers straining to reach the surface of their pond, which represents enlightenment. Some flowers are very close, others are halfway there, and still others are still nascent. I feel that we ought to try to reach all of those flowers, at least as a long-term goal. Speaking just for myself, Wikipedia seems to offer a big enough tent for articles of different levels — do you think so? Willow 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I tried to fix the template problem on gene by putting it below the lead Figure, where it had lots of white space to grow into (across from the Table of Contents) and where it could be seen both from the lead and from the article below. ClockworkSoul has a complementary approach, too. 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that there is room for articles of different levels here, but then I am a little bit biased. Sometimes these hand to hand fights over AfD can be horrendous. I had a bit of trouble with Hinduism and Creationism that was very touch and go for a day or two. They really were offended. And I fought very hard and I might be able to save Support for evolution, although possibly under another name. --Filll 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh. "Obviate" is one of my favorite English words; it's rare to find one that isn't jargon with such a precise meaning. I'm not really up to a mass overhaul of the genetics articles, but I might take Filll's suggestion and simplify the leads so that the glossary links will actually be useful to the people that need them. As I mentioned on Filll's talk - the main reason I don't like introduction to genetics is that gene and genetics ought not to be very technical in the first place, so they should be the 'introduction' for the subject. While there's motivation to improve these articles, I think it should be channeled into the main ones - it'd look a little silly to have a nice fancy intro article and then have the 'main' articles be a mess.
Filll, I'll reply to your deletion questions on my talk. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldnt find the AfD page either. But if one appears, I will be glad to go to bat for you. I think they seem to be getting much nastier latelyylI had a page for John Tyler Bonner, AAAS fellow, NAS fellow, emeritus professor and Department chairman at Princeton, holder of 3 honorary PhDs besides his earned PhD which he got in about 2 years while he was an officer in the Army Air Corps, from Harvard. And the guy said, he isnt notable. So I removed the notice, and he went after me again, with nasty snide comments. What ? If that is not notable, what is?--Filll 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I expect anyone who has a myspace account is notable to many here. By the way NAS, is like, totally overated, like, I ne'er heard of it. What's it mean, like, Nuts And Stuff, ha, ha, like my joke, like? As for AAAS sounds too much like ASS to be serious LOL ROTFLMAO, :-) get it, get it. like seriously you need to get over yourself Filll,er up, OH MAN I am on a roll now.
- But seriously, I removed the deletion tag, And I too will defend it if it goes to AfD, please let me know if that happens. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks and thanks and thanks; you two are the best. Also replied on Talk:Sweater design. Willow 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector figures
Do you still have the source files you used to create the figures (for "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector") using xfig? Have you sent them to Jitse Niesen? He said he thought he could produce SVG figures if you did so, a nice boost for the article. (I'll watch here if you want to reply; otherwise, just talk to Jitse.) --KSmrqT 08:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Miscellany
Looks like sweater design will survive its afd; that's good news. From his comments on the talk page, the nominator didn't seem like he quite grokked the deletion process anyway.
I added a bit on 'immunoinformatics' (god what a terrible name) to immune system; feel free to reorganize if it fits better elsewhere. A quick search didn't come up with anything obvious on the 500Da cutoff, but I admit I didn't look overly hard either :) Of course the conventional wisdom is that if you propose a drug that's made of protein and isn't an antibody, you'd better have a Damn Good Reason. Were you guys still looking for age-dependence effects? Sorry I didn't get around to that earlier; I really should know by now not to post timeframes like 'tomorrow' and 'next week'.
I thought you might like to know that I now own these. Opabinia regalis 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- How awesome! :) I've always wanted one of these as well; all of Nature is beautiful, of course, but a purple trypanosome with eyelashes is well-nigh proof of a beneficient creatrix. ;)
- (Deep breath) I can't thank you enough for your support on the Sweater design AfD. I hate being mastered by my feelings, but it upset me; I had a horrible premonition of all my knitting articles being destroyed as "instructional". I suppose that they would deserve annihilation if they weren't proper for WP, but I still believe that they have a place here. Your ideas on the Talk page were really good; I'll do my best to improve the article's tone and research the new topics.
- Your immunoinformatics additions seem excellent. The 500 Dalton cutoff was taken from a conversation I had with a medicinal chemist from a pharmaceutical company that I met skiing a few years ago; he seemed so knowledgable and earnest (and cute, oops ;) that I thought he must know what he was talking about. The cutoff made sense, but then again, taxol is over 800 Da. Hmm, I'll try to look into it.
- I personally feel like the Immune system should have more about its age dependence, since many lay-people will care about it and, umm, I'm totally curious. ;) I suspect that the declining-hormones argument isn't the whole story. I'm not really a major contributor to the article, though, so I'm not the one to ask; I just throw stuff in now and then, beg for references and hope that people like it. Don't worry about the time frame; we're building an encyclopedia on the century time-scale so we can be gentle with ourselves, no? Even should we fall down, other Problematica and Salicaceae will rise up; the very stones will shout for joy. :) Willow 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have a soft-toy trypanosome, as well as their influenza and ebola virons. They're adorable. Congratulations on your vector article passing FA Willow. It was far above my head, but I read it with interest if not enlightenment. Well done! TimVickers 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I gave a few people giant microbes as stocking-stuffers a couple of years ago. I figured it was an appropriately dorky thing to do :) Will look a bit more thoroughly for size dependence of immunogenicity (notice how I didn't put a timeframe in there?) because I'm sure it is roughly larger molecule = more antigenic, I just don't know the specifics. I imagine there's also functional group correlations. And also -- vv ditto to Tim below. Great job on the LRL vectors; getting such an article to FA status is great work! Opabinia regalis 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Even the problem children of Nature — the problematica? — are beautiful and deserve the love they'll get. The LRLv just needed a little more attention than most so that the right people could appreciate her charms. 3) Maybe she should switch from pumps to flats, though? :p
- Thank you both, for you know what and you know why Willow 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Laplace–Runge–Lenz
Wow you made FA. I knew you would. Beautiful job. I still owe you some comments however.--Filll 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that article could stand a bit of polishing? For the average dufus I mean...it is a bit dense....--Filll 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick thanks
Thank you for the compliments, they're never overdue :)! Honestly, I didn't do all that much on immune system, you know. I'm just glad my edits could be helpful. Fvasconcellos 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- And some more thanks....for being someone who looks for the good in everyone! It was nice to read your warm message Willow, I apprecitate it! In reply tho', I'm not sure I would call myself "cool" but I guess we can all dream ;-) Well done yourself for helping get the immune system and countless other pages up to scratch!! Ciar 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the very kind words, Willow, and congrats yourself on the FA of your Vector article (which I must admit was way over my head). Yes, I too am sure the article will help people (cough>plagiarize>cough) for a long time to come, plus and probably even more important, I really enjoyed working on it. Thanks for all that you did to help make the article special, I look forward to working with you again sometime.--DO11.10 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- And some more thanks....for being someone who looks for the good in everyone! It was nice to read your warm message Willow, I apprecitate it! In reply tho', I'm not sure I would call myself "cool" but I guess we can all dream ;-) Well done yourself for helping get the immune system and countless other pages up to scratch!! Ciar 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica
Don't understand why you have put the "The sale of the Britannica to Americans" quote between the 9th & 10th editions, when the quote appears to refer to a much more contemporary criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Sorry, that was because the sale occurred in 1901, between those editions. The quote was intended to show the lingering resentment. Hoping that that seems sensible, Willow 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, I'm up to speed now. The reference after "American concerns are emphasized" didn;t seem to be working. Looks like a type; fixed. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Your kind words
Willow,
All I can say is "wow". Thank you so much for thinking of me... it's exactly what I need right now, and you - and those like you - have been profoundly helpful and supportive. You're very right about peace and forgiveness, and I've never been one to hold a grudge, so in that spirit I accepted her apology without reservation. That being said, however, we still have a bumpy road ahead of us, but at least now we're on it together. In the most genuine possible way, thank you. – ClockworkSoul 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)