Hi there WillowW, Ha! I'd like to think I don't have much in common with the radio presenters I think you are referring to - Australia does have it's share of dodgy, conniving, unethical and corrupt shock-jocks doesn't it...
Regarding the awadewit interview itself, it is looking to go live in two ep's time. We were surprisingly organised and managed to get another panel episode in the can. Because the panel discussions are about the news they are more time-specific and have preference over the interview episodes which do not go out of date nearly so quickly. That being said, if you asked awadewit herself for a copy of the show she might send it to you. it's up to her on that one. Otherwise, it's looking to go live in about a fortnight... sorry.
I'm glad to hear you're interested though. It's very exciting to know someone is interested in one's work. Cheers,
Witty Lama 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter explains how to do this. Tim Vickers 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's no good, they don't trust me. You'll have to let me in on the secret of writing articles, instead. And stop calling me Q! – Gurch 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Willow: I have been working on Speedies on New Pages tonight, and your name comes up so often that I keep losing my place. Are you working on setting a record for the most new (and not speedied) articles in a day? Bielle 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What's Greek for "blitz"? (That's just to show you that some people read the edit summaries, words from old hymns and all.) Bielle 03:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I love etymologies, but I didn't ever study Greek: Latin, French, Russian, yes, but not Greek. Even in my day, which is somewhere just this side of the Jurassic Era, classical Greek was seldom taught outside of universities and church schools, and modern Greek was only what the newcomers in the souvlaki place spoke. Thanks for the vocabulary update. Bielle 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Have been new page patrolling tonight and I seriously CANNOT BELIEVE (sorry for shouting) the rate you are churning these out. Are you some kind of bot, or what? Such a pleasure to see new pages that actually add to Wikipedia, rather than being of the "Brad wilkins is gay and has a small wiener" variety. And bravo for the edit summaries too. Keep up the good work! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you've been asked before Willow, but would you be interested in becoming an admin? The extra tools are quite useful. Tim Vickers 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for painstakingly reading JP! I do have two concerns over additions you made.
Thanks! Awadewit | talk 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed we should ask him because I know that Priestley accepted parts of Lavoisier's theory but not others. Ragesoss would be better equipped than I to make that distinction. I am just absolutely paranoid about scientific mistakes creeping into the article. You understand. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at Cohen's Revolution in Science right now and it states that "The Chemical Revolution made use of a general principle known as 'conservation of mass', or 'conservation of matter', which explains that in a chemical reaction the total mass (or weight) of all the reacting substances must be identically equal to the total mass (or weight) of all the product substances. This principle, now basic to all sciences, was not then essential to chemical theory." (231) - See why I'm a bit confused? :) Awadewit | talk 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
To me the Cohen sentences are a bit vague - was the law a "law" during chemical revolution or only afterwards? Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please also remember that this article contains only the briefest summary of Priestley's beliefs and necessarily leaves out points - it is meant to be a general introduction. Also, as you are well aware, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Even if it is true that Leibniz said the same thing earlier (although I don't think this is actually true, from what I have read), we don't have a source that says "Leibniz said this before Priestley". Combining these two sources is original research. I cannot emphasize enough how complex and intricate Priestley's philosophical beliefs are - scholars don't even agree on what they say nor do they agree if his beliefs are a system or not (remember he wrote dozens of works). If you want to start unraveling Priestley's beliefs, read the McEvoy and McGuire article entitled "God and Nature". Perhaps we could read through it together and work on that section? I found it the hardest of all of the sections to write. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Priestley had more than one position throughout his life (as many of us do!) So why don't we stick with the positions he outlined in the 1770s and 1780s - the ones I discuss in the "Materialist philosopher" section. Priestley was not always a materialist and was not a complete materialist, evidenced by one of the paragraphs in that section which describes his ideas of the soul - it is made of a divine substance that humans cannot access. By the way, Priestley was a monist of sorts - a position he derived from Leibniz, as I understand it, but I felt that it would be even more difficult to explain than the concepts already in the article. :) Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article used to outline each change in Priestley's theological beliefs, but other editors felt this was a bit tiresome. It is not to me, but apparently not everyone is enthralled by obscure discussions of theology. The article followed him from Calvinism to Arianism to Socinianism to Unitarianism. Along with these changes in theology went changes in philosophy, obviously (actually, I think I'm missing one step there). The question about consistency is tricky. As the "Legacy" section points out, some scholars have argued that Priestley's works are a coherent system while others have argued that they are not - which position should the article take? The article leans towards "system" since most of the scholarship says that, but there is no agreement on that front. Frankly, I don't think anyone wants to read the 150 books to find out! :) Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Willow, I've been looking over some Leibniz material and I just don't think we can make this comparison, especially when we are citing to primary sources. Interpreting what philosophers mean is notoriously difficult and I don't want to put the article in the position of relying only on primary sources for the Leibniz claim. We need some sort of secondary source to back that up. I haven't seen one yet. I don't think that Leibniz and Priestley were really looking at the world the same way, either, since Priestley's philosophical system was so science-based. Let me know what you think about removing that sentence. I know that you were concerned about the article misrepresenting Priestley's views. When I wrote those sections, I tended to think of them as the "planetary model of the atom"-version of Priestley's philosophy. The reader would get the basic gist of Priestley's philosophy, but some elements would inevitably get lost or perhaps even be slightly incorrect because of a lack of nuance. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
blush blush blush Oh Cronholm, it wasn't even two weeks ago that I told Roger that "I'm a credulosaur and a gullibilodon", and now I have the perfect proof. :) You and G-guy are much too nice to me in thinking my tongue was in cheek; I confess I was completely taken in. I can't even claim to have just scanned your conversation; I followed the link and read the whole story, which seemed plausible to me and consistent with what I knew (or wanted to believe) of the protagonists' personalities. Oh well, I daresay I'll embarrass myself much worse the longer you know me, so I might as well set the bar early; you'll just have to live with me as I am. :) In return I promise I'll never whack you with a trout or any other member of the Osteichthyes. ;) Affectionately and foolishly, dashing off to class, Willow 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, G-guy! :) It's really good to hear your voice again; I've missed you and Cronholm. One of these days, I'll start working on math-y Featured Articles again, and then we'll enjoy the pleasure of each other's company more regularly. :) Despite his success, I don't think Cronholm makes a very good Loki; he's more of a Heimdall, don't you think? and I'm probably closest to Ratatosk, a red-head who flits between worlds. ;) Willow 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Does your increased activity mean that you have returned from your vacation and from the harvest? :) Awadewit | talk 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Sounds like the effects of global warming. We had summer here until the middle of October. Good to read your words again. :) I have missed having you around. Awadewit | talk 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
User:DO11.10 and User:MarcoTolo have been working on poliomyelitis for some time and DO11.10 is close to nominating at FAC. I'm partway through reviewing and copyediting but I'm not good enough to get it up to FAC quality. I'd really appreciate it if you could help to ensure it is well prepared for FAC. I think it needs some further copyediting and help making some parts lay-reader-friendly.
BTW, looking at your amazing contributions, I think you may be able to help me with some of tuberous sclerosis. There are parts of that subject that I would very much like to see improved but just can't get my head round, never mind write about. It isn't urgent, but if you might be interested, let me know. No pressure. Regards, Colin° Talk 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey best friend: One of my adoptees (
Bwthemoose) has created the
Myeloma protein page. Since you're a science guru and I should never argue with you about anything relating to science you know about science and I don't, I wonder if you'd be willing to have a look and/or keep an eye on it. Right now it's very stubby. Thanks. –
Scartol ·
Talk
19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd be welcome to add your recommendation. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy. Tim Vickers 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, just read your supportive comments. Thanks a ton! it means a lot from you. :) David D. (Talk) 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The proper format for RFA's is if you want to Co-nominate someone then you type:
'''Co-nom from {{User|WillowW}}''' Reason for co-nomination ~~~~
under the other nominations.
If you want to comment then add a comment to your decision to support or oppose.
This RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy for example. If you want to support then you should wait until it goes live to support since some users don't like discussions before it goes public and even oppose the RFA's based on that. If you want to add comments other than about your support then do those under the "Discussion" area listed above the "Support" part. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on JJ and Analytical Review lately. There is just a bit more reading that needs to be done (which I will finish up soon) and that endless polishing of language. If you have time, could you drop by and see how they are progressing? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No pressure. I just didn't want you to think that I was running roughshod over all of your beautiful contributions! Awadewit | talk 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to take your word that Aquacobalamin reductase is fascinating because all I understood was "it is a catalyst"! Just one question. If it has all those other names - Vitamin B12a reductase etc. - should those be redirects? Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes if I have a few minutes spare and can't think of anything else to do I like to make some redirects, so I wanted to be clear on this before I started messing around and screwing things up! Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers. Awadewit | talk 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ms Willow for your lovely words of congratulations! I handed in around a week ago, a great weight off my small shoulders! (and actually at this moment I am listening to our mutual friend Awadewit's podcast with Wikipedia Weekly)
I am having a little break now, but am also volunteering for the Australian Federal Election which is currently underway. So I am planning a lovely holiday with my mother in the week following the election, which will be lovely. My mum lives a fair way away from me in the country, where I grew up, so I don't see her that often: a shared holiday will be glorious!
I will be emailing out pdf copies of the thesis to all participants in the next few days, so look out for yours in your inbox....
oh, and my garden is also doing very well...but with spring/summer herbs and vegies. we have just had a week or so of persistent rain with the sun now out, so I am hoping for some good growth in the coming weeks!
Best and love, tamsin 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Willow, somehow or other I lost track of you after I asked you to look at Harold Pinter. Dunno how I let that happen... Hope things are going well! later, -- Ling.Nut 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that wasn't just a typing test? I can't even pronounce it! Bielle 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey best friend – I've spent some time improving Harriet Tubman and I'm trying to get it ready for FAC. Would you care to do a peer review? Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, it's an excellent article, Scartol! I wish I was as keen-eyed as some of our friends, but I can scarcely find anything that I would change. I do think you made the right choice in writing about HT before ST.
Two phrases did leap out at me; I like them and their vivacity, but I suspect that others will want you to change their wording to something more prosaic:
Something about "lady friend Catherine" also called itself to my attention, but I'm not sure why; does it sound OK to you?
I'll look at the article again tonight; maybe something will occur to me once I've had a chance to stew over it? Willow 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, please don't change them for me, especially the "Rit" and "lady friend" sentences; I like them as is! I also don't think Wikipedia policy requires us to write in dry prose, although I default to that if I'm worried that someone will object to my sometimes overly colourful writing. For example, here you could say, "Rit struggled to keep her family together despite her owner's wish to sell them off individually, as occurred frequently under slavery."; but I much prefer your version, anthropomorphizing slavery and making it a pitched battle between a mother and a heartless, vicious institution. I've admired your rare gift for writing vividly but still professionally in your other articles as well. Good luck at FAC! :) Willow 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Link. Tim Vickers 03:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
After the great Newton-Leibniz fiasco of ought seven, I don't know if you are willing to delve into the history of science again, but just in case you are, I think that Le Sage's theory of gravitation could use the Willow touch. I just failed it for GA, but felt very guilty about it. I am now trying to rustle up editors who might be able and willing to contribute to it in some meaningful way. :) Awadewit | talk 08:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις ταῖς ἔμαισι τέρπνα κάλως ἀείσω. — Sappho | ” |
Hi WillowW, Did you include your List of non-coding RNA somewhere in the mainspace? I think this should be a standalone article. The list is very helpful, as everything you do.-- Biophys ( talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Then shall their brave names, familiar as household words — Tim, David, Geometry guy — be in our flowing cups freshly remembered; and editors now-abed shall think themselves accurs'd they weren't admins, and hold their sainthoods cheap whiles any speaks that succeeded in changing the WP:MOS and WP:RS policies for the better. ;) | ” |
Well you definitely gave me a laugh with the creation summaries. -- DarkFalls talk 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long, but your request for PBB to make gene stubs related to Usher Syndrome is now complete. Enjoy! AndrewGNF ( talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Willow! :) I feel like a little mouse squeaking from over here...Did you know Dorothy Kilner wrote one of the first mouse-perspective children's stories? Awadewit | talk 06:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite graphic aren't they? Life and Perambulation is the centerpiece of my chapter on violence in eighteenth-century children's literature. By the way, what did you think about the little boy being beaten like he abused the mouse? Quite the little vignette, eh? I read that whole scene aloud at two different conferences and both times people laughed. Tells you our aesthetic has changed, because I don't think it was meant to be funny. :) Awadewit | talk 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am soliciting peer reviews for a little article I wrote on Sarah Trimmer's The Guardian of Education. If you have a moment, could you take a look at it? I'm not planning on taking it to FAC, but I do want critiques of it. The peer review is here. Awadewit | talk 10:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you please stop creating lyase articles before consulting some WikiProject, probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. I'm not qualified to determine whether they all deserve articles, but listing properties of chemicals without references as to actual use seems to violate Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, if WP:MCB approves, I have no objection. I was on new article patrol, and I was a bit surprised to find so many long article creations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
HI thanks for your work on enzymes. However is it necessary to have so many external links? Most editors woulld regard it as spam. Couldn't you stick to three or four links maximum? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK -I know a few links is good anyway as they provide editors looking to expand the articles at a later date with adequate sources to investigate, I did notice quite a few though! Keep up the good work anyway -content like this only makes the encyclopedia look more genius. Adios my tree ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not condoning the edit summaries on some of those new enzyme pages you created, but I have to admit some were pretty cute. As a courtesy to other editors you may wish to use more useful ones when editing an established article, although that is not to say they cannot be both useful and cute! Happy editing. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Xanthan lyase, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://us.expasy.org/enzyme/4.2.2.12.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed it! It looks like it deserves a mention - though should I edit the current edition to insert it? Or wait for the next edition? I'm very new at this, and don't really know the convention. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you vote last year in the ArbCom elections? I'm trying to do my wiki-civic duty and figure out how and who to vote for, but I'm finding the whole process a bit confusing. Any advice you could offer a newbie would be much appreciated. :) Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you see my response on the JP page? I don't think JP believed in "traditional Christianity", so this is all very confusing. Several things would need to be established:
This is a very long list of things, as you can see. This is one reason why I do not think that they held the same position. Also, I have a feeling that their definitions of "free will", "determinism", "Christianity", and "natural law" are just going to be too different. Awadewit | talk 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your kind message. I appreciate your generous support; WP needs more positivity like yours. – Scartol • Tok 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Willow: I just saw the results of your impressive Leibniz research at Talk:Joseph Priestley. Such solid, beautifully written work should not be hidden away on a Talk page. Please take a break from chemistry edits and add to Joseph Priestley the conclusions with refs that are appropriate to Priestley by comparison (you do not need anyone's permission to edit the article). Since that will only be a smidgen, please take a longer break from chemistry and work the material into Gottfried Leibniz (which could also be a FA someday) and to other articles that concern the subject matter. Contributing such good work, rather than letting it go to waste on a Talk page, can only improve Wikipedia. Thanks! Finell (Talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
"(an edit summary just for the nice people patrolling Special:Newpages ;)" That was great! Gtstricky ( talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Bearian 18:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort on enzyme articles. -- Nehwyn 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all those articles on random enzymes. Without them I wouldn't have gotten off my butt and fixed my whois script! ARendedWinter 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How many points do you get for that at Scrabble? Good work. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
With a name like that, it's got to be bad for you. I remember, as a kid, always liking the word Floccinaucinihilipilification. For some reason, however, I thought that it meant a disease one got from inhaling volcanic gases. Only when I grew up did I realise that the latter was Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Must be something about long words, I guess... Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Might be quite difficult to play one of those on the piano with any degree of accuracy. Or, indeed, brevity. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're flooding new pages like no other. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You sure you don't want adminship (I think you were asked and you said no). Kwsn (Ni!) 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there WillowW, Ha! I'd like to think I don't have much in common with the radio presenters I think you are referring to - Australia does have it's share of dodgy, conniving, unethical and corrupt shock-jocks doesn't it...
Regarding the awadewit interview itself, it is looking to go live in two ep's time. We were surprisingly organised and managed to get another panel episode in the can. Because the panel discussions are about the news they are more time-specific and have preference over the interview episodes which do not go out of date nearly so quickly. That being said, if you asked awadewit herself for a copy of the show she might send it to you. it's up to her on that one. Otherwise, it's looking to go live in about a fortnight... sorry.
I'm glad to hear you're interested though. It's very exciting to know someone is interested in one's work. Cheers,
Witty Lama 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter explains how to do this. Tim Vickers 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's no good, they don't trust me. You'll have to let me in on the secret of writing articles, instead. And stop calling me Q! – Gurch 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Willow: I have been working on Speedies on New Pages tonight, and your name comes up so often that I keep losing my place. Are you working on setting a record for the most new (and not speedied) articles in a day? Bielle 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What's Greek for "blitz"? (That's just to show you that some people read the edit summaries, words from old hymns and all.) Bielle 03:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I love etymologies, but I didn't ever study Greek: Latin, French, Russian, yes, but not Greek. Even in my day, which is somewhere just this side of the Jurassic Era, classical Greek was seldom taught outside of universities and church schools, and modern Greek was only what the newcomers in the souvlaki place spoke. Thanks for the vocabulary update. Bielle 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Have been new page patrolling tonight and I seriously CANNOT BELIEVE (sorry for shouting) the rate you are churning these out. Are you some kind of bot, or what? Such a pleasure to see new pages that actually add to Wikipedia, rather than being of the "Brad wilkins is gay and has a small wiener" variety. And bravo for the edit summaries too. Keep up the good work! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you've been asked before Willow, but would you be interested in becoming an admin? The extra tools are quite useful. Tim Vickers 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for painstakingly reading JP! I do have two concerns over additions you made.
Thanks! Awadewit | talk 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed we should ask him because I know that Priestley accepted parts of Lavoisier's theory but not others. Ragesoss would be better equipped than I to make that distinction. I am just absolutely paranoid about scientific mistakes creeping into the article. You understand. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at Cohen's Revolution in Science right now and it states that "The Chemical Revolution made use of a general principle known as 'conservation of mass', or 'conservation of matter', which explains that in a chemical reaction the total mass (or weight) of all the reacting substances must be identically equal to the total mass (or weight) of all the product substances. This principle, now basic to all sciences, was not then essential to chemical theory." (231) - See why I'm a bit confused? :) Awadewit | talk 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
To me the Cohen sentences are a bit vague - was the law a "law" during chemical revolution or only afterwards? Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please also remember that this article contains only the briefest summary of Priestley's beliefs and necessarily leaves out points - it is meant to be a general introduction. Also, as you are well aware, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Even if it is true that Leibniz said the same thing earlier (although I don't think this is actually true, from what I have read), we don't have a source that says "Leibniz said this before Priestley". Combining these two sources is original research. I cannot emphasize enough how complex and intricate Priestley's philosophical beliefs are - scholars don't even agree on what they say nor do they agree if his beliefs are a system or not (remember he wrote dozens of works). If you want to start unraveling Priestley's beliefs, read the McEvoy and McGuire article entitled "God and Nature". Perhaps we could read through it together and work on that section? I found it the hardest of all of the sections to write. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Priestley had more than one position throughout his life (as many of us do!) So why don't we stick with the positions he outlined in the 1770s and 1780s - the ones I discuss in the "Materialist philosopher" section. Priestley was not always a materialist and was not a complete materialist, evidenced by one of the paragraphs in that section which describes his ideas of the soul - it is made of a divine substance that humans cannot access. By the way, Priestley was a monist of sorts - a position he derived from Leibniz, as I understand it, but I felt that it would be even more difficult to explain than the concepts already in the article. :) Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article used to outline each change in Priestley's theological beliefs, but other editors felt this was a bit tiresome. It is not to me, but apparently not everyone is enthralled by obscure discussions of theology. The article followed him from Calvinism to Arianism to Socinianism to Unitarianism. Along with these changes in theology went changes in philosophy, obviously (actually, I think I'm missing one step there). The question about consistency is tricky. As the "Legacy" section points out, some scholars have argued that Priestley's works are a coherent system while others have argued that they are not - which position should the article take? The article leans towards "system" since most of the scholarship says that, but there is no agreement on that front. Frankly, I don't think anyone wants to read the 150 books to find out! :) Awadewit | talk 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Willow, I've been looking over some Leibniz material and I just don't think we can make this comparison, especially when we are citing to primary sources. Interpreting what philosophers mean is notoriously difficult and I don't want to put the article in the position of relying only on primary sources for the Leibniz claim. We need some sort of secondary source to back that up. I haven't seen one yet. I don't think that Leibniz and Priestley were really looking at the world the same way, either, since Priestley's philosophical system was so science-based. Let me know what you think about removing that sentence. I know that you were concerned about the article misrepresenting Priestley's views. When I wrote those sections, I tended to think of them as the "planetary model of the atom"-version of Priestley's philosophy. The reader would get the basic gist of Priestley's philosophy, but some elements would inevitably get lost or perhaps even be slightly incorrect because of a lack of nuance. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
blush blush blush Oh Cronholm, it wasn't even two weeks ago that I told Roger that "I'm a credulosaur and a gullibilodon", and now I have the perfect proof. :) You and G-guy are much too nice to me in thinking my tongue was in cheek; I confess I was completely taken in. I can't even claim to have just scanned your conversation; I followed the link and read the whole story, which seemed plausible to me and consistent with what I knew (or wanted to believe) of the protagonists' personalities. Oh well, I daresay I'll embarrass myself much worse the longer you know me, so I might as well set the bar early; you'll just have to live with me as I am. :) In return I promise I'll never whack you with a trout or any other member of the Osteichthyes. ;) Affectionately and foolishly, dashing off to class, Willow 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, G-guy! :) It's really good to hear your voice again; I've missed you and Cronholm. One of these days, I'll start working on math-y Featured Articles again, and then we'll enjoy the pleasure of each other's company more regularly. :) Despite his success, I don't think Cronholm makes a very good Loki; he's more of a Heimdall, don't you think? and I'm probably closest to Ratatosk, a red-head who flits between worlds. ;) Willow 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Does your increased activity mean that you have returned from your vacation and from the harvest? :) Awadewit | talk 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Sounds like the effects of global warming. We had summer here until the middle of October. Good to read your words again. :) I have missed having you around. Awadewit | talk 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
User:DO11.10 and User:MarcoTolo have been working on poliomyelitis for some time and DO11.10 is close to nominating at FAC. I'm partway through reviewing and copyediting but I'm not good enough to get it up to FAC quality. I'd really appreciate it if you could help to ensure it is well prepared for FAC. I think it needs some further copyediting and help making some parts lay-reader-friendly.
BTW, looking at your amazing contributions, I think you may be able to help me with some of tuberous sclerosis. There are parts of that subject that I would very much like to see improved but just can't get my head round, never mind write about. It isn't urgent, but if you might be interested, let me know. No pressure. Regards, Colin° Talk 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey best friend: One of my adoptees (
Bwthemoose) has created the
Myeloma protein page. Since you're a science guru and I should never argue with you about anything relating to science you know about science and I don't, I wonder if you'd be willing to have a look and/or keep an eye on it. Right now it's very stubby. Thanks. –
Scartol ·
Talk
19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd be welcome to add your recommendation. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy. Tim Vickers 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, just read your supportive comments. Thanks a ton! it means a lot from you. :) David D. (Talk) 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The proper format for RFA's is if you want to Co-nominate someone then you type:
'''Co-nom from {{User|WillowW}}''' Reason for co-nomination ~~~~
under the other nominations.
If you want to comment then add a comment to your decision to support or oppose.
This RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geometry guy for example. If you want to support then you should wait until it goes live to support since some users don't like discussions before it goes public and even oppose the RFA's based on that. If you want to add comments other than about your support then do those under the "Discussion" area listed above the "Support" part. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on JJ and Analytical Review lately. There is just a bit more reading that needs to be done (which I will finish up soon) and that endless polishing of language. If you have time, could you drop by and see how they are progressing? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No pressure. I just didn't want you to think that I was running roughshod over all of your beautiful contributions! Awadewit | talk 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to take your word that Aquacobalamin reductase is fascinating because all I understood was "it is a catalyst"! Just one question. If it has all those other names - Vitamin B12a reductase etc. - should those be redirects? Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes if I have a few minutes spare and can't think of anything else to do I like to make some redirects, so I wanted to be clear on this before I started messing around and screwing things up! Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers. Awadewit | talk 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ms Willow for your lovely words of congratulations! I handed in around a week ago, a great weight off my small shoulders! (and actually at this moment I am listening to our mutual friend Awadewit's podcast with Wikipedia Weekly)
I am having a little break now, but am also volunteering for the Australian Federal Election which is currently underway. So I am planning a lovely holiday with my mother in the week following the election, which will be lovely. My mum lives a fair way away from me in the country, where I grew up, so I don't see her that often: a shared holiday will be glorious!
I will be emailing out pdf copies of the thesis to all participants in the next few days, so look out for yours in your inbox....
oh, and my garden is also doing very well...but with spring/summer herbs and vegies. we have just had a week or so of persistent rain with the sun now out, so I am hoping for some good growth in the coming weeks!
Best and love, tamsin 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Willow, somehow or other I lost track of you after I asked you to look at Harold Pinter. Dunno how I let that happen... Hope things are going well! later, -- Ling.Nut 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that wasn't just a typing test? I can't even pronounce it! Bielle 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey best friend – I've spent some time improving Harriet Tubman and I'm trying to get it ready for FAC. Would you care to do a peer review? Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, it's an excellent article, Scartol! I wish I was as keen-eyed as some of our friends, but I can scarcely find anything that I would change. I do think you made the right choice in writing about HT before ST.
Two phrases did leap out at me; I like them and their vivacity, but I suspect that others will want you to change their wording to something more prosaic:
Something about "lady friend Catherine" also called itself to my attention, but I'm not sure why; does it sound OK to you?
I'll look at the article again tonight; maybe something will occur to me once I've had a chance to stew over it? Willow 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, please don't change them for me, especially the "Rit" and "lady friend" sentences; I like them as is! I also don't think Wikipedia policy requires us to write in dry prose, although I default to that if I'm worried that someone will object to my sometimes overly colourful writing. For example, here you could say, "Rit struggled to keep her family together despite her owner's wish to sell them off individually, as occurred frequently under slavery."; but I much prefer your version, anthropomorphizing slavery and making it a pitched battle between a mother and a heartless, vicious institution. I've admired your rare gift for writing vividly but still professionally in your other articles as well. Good luck at FAC! :) Willow 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Link. Tim Vickers 03:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
After the great Newton-Leibniz fiasco of ought seven, I don't know if you are willing to delve into the history of science again, but just in case you are, I think that Le Sage's theory of gravitation could use the Willow touch. I just failed it for GA, but felt very guilty about it. I am now trying to rustle up editors who might be able and willing to contribute to it in some meaningful way. :) Awadewit | talk 08:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις ταῖς ἔμαισι τέρπνα κάλως ἀείσω. — Sappho | ” |
Hi WillowW, Did you include your List of non-coding RNA somewhere in the mainspace? I think this should be a standalone article. The list is very helpful, as everything you do.-- Biophys ( talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Then shall their brave names, familiar as household words — Tim, David, Geometry guy — be in our flowing cups freshly remembered; and editors now-abed shall think themselves accurs'd they weren't admins, and hold their sainthoods cheap whiles any speaks that succeeded in changing the WP:MOS and WP:RS policies for the better. ;) | ” |
Well you definitely gave me a laugh with the creation summaries. -- DarkFalls talk 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long, but your request for PBB to make gene stubs related to Usher Syndrome is now complete. Enjoy! AndrewGNF ( talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Willow! :) I feel like a little mouse squeaking from over here...Did you know Dorothy Kilner wrote one of the first mouse-perspective children's stories? Awadewit | talk 06:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite graphic aren't they? Life and Perambulation is the centerpiece of my chapter on violence in eighteenth-century children's literature. By the way, what did you think about the little boy being beaten like he abused the mouse? Quite the little vignette, eh? I read that whole scene aloud at two different conferences and both times people laughed. Tells you our aesthetic has changed, because I don't think it was meant to be funny. :) Awadewit | talk 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am soliciting peer reviews for a little article I wrote on Sarah Trimmer's The Guardian of Education. If you have a moment, could you take a look at it? I'm not planning on taking it to FAC, but I do want critiques of it. The peer review is here. Awadewit | talk 10:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you please stop creating lyase articles before consulting some WikiProject, probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. I'm not qualified to determine whether they all deserve articles, but listing properties of chemicals without references as to actual use seems to violate Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, if WP:MCB approves, I have no objection. I was on new article patrol, and I was a bit surprised to find so many long article creations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
HI thanks for your work on enzymes. However is it necessary to have so many external links? Most editors woulld regard it as spam. Couldn't you stick to three or four links maximum? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK -I know a few links is good anyway as they provide editors looking to expand the articles at a later date with adequate sources to investigate, I did notice quite a few though! Keep up the good work anyway -content like this only makes the encyclopedia look more genius. Adios my tree ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not condoning the edit summaries on some of those new enzyme pages you created, but I have to admit some were pretty cute. As a courtesy to other editors you may wish to use more useful ones when editing an established article, although that is not to say they cannot be both useful and cute! Happy editing. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Xanthan lyase, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://us.expasy.org/enzyme/4.2.2.12.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed it! It looks like it deserves a mention - though should I edit the current edition to insert it? Or wait for the next edition? I'm very new at this, and don't really know the convention. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you vote last year in the ArbCom elections? I'm trying to do my wiki-civic duty and figure out how and who to vote for, but I'm finding the whole process a bit confusing. Any advice you could offer a newbie would be much appreciated. :) Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you see my response on the JP page? I don't think JP believed in "traditional Christianity", so this is all very confusing. Several things would need to be established:
This is a very long list of things, as you can see. This is one reason why I do not think that they held the same position. Also, I have a feeling that their definitions of "free will", "determinism", "Christianity", and "natural law" are just going to be too different. Awadewit | talk 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your kind message. I appreciate your generous support; WP needs more positivity like yours. – Scartol • Tok 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Willow: I just saw the results of your impressive Leibniz research at Talk:Joseph Priestley. Such solid, beautifully written work should not be hidden away on a Talk page. Please take a break from chemistry edits and add to Joseph Priestley the conclusions with refs that are appropriate to Priestley by comparison (you do not need anyone's permission to edit the article). Since that will only be a smidgen, please take a longer break from chemistry and work the material into Gottfried Leibniz (which could also be a FA someday) and to other articles that concern the subject matter. Contributing such good work, rather than letting it go to waste on a Talk page, can only improve Wikipedia. Thanks! Finell (Talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
"(an edit summary just for the nice people patrolling Special:Newpages ;)" That was great! Gtstricky ( talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Bearian 18:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort on enzyme articles. -- Nehwyn 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all those articles on random enzymes. Without them I wouldn't have gotten off my butt and fixed my whois script! ARendedWinter 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How many points do you get for that at Scrabble? Good work. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
With a name like that, it's got to be bad for you. I remember, as a kid, always liking the word Floccinaucinihilipilification. For some reason, however, I thought that it meant a disease one got from inhaling volcanic gases. Only when I grew up did I realise that the latter was Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Must be something about long words, I guess... Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Might be quite difficult to play one of those on the piano with any degree of accuracy. Or, indeed, brevity. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're flooding new pages like no other. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You sure you don't want adminship (I think you were asked and you said no). Kwsn (Ni!) 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)