As JP is appearing on the main page on the first of March, I feel like we should go back and finish hashing out those sentences. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think enzyme activity might fit best with enzyme catalysis, since it can be argued that since this is what enzymes "do" - this is their "activity". However, some might perfer directing it to enzyme assay, since enzyme activity is also a unit of measurement. In discussing the substrate, you have to remember that methylglyoxal is not the substrate of GLO1, whatever the databases say! The hemithioacetal is what the enzyme binds, and here C1 is linked to the sulphur. I'd follow Thornalley here his review is pretty good. All the best, Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"Lack of metal specificity" is how I'd word it. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You might recognise a new addition to the main Enzyme article. :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've come to request no favors and solicit no assistance. I just wanted to drop by and say hello. When so many days go by without contact from other editors, I can feel distant footsteps echo in the darkness; it's a creepy feeling. (Looks like things have been idle around this talk page for a while too.) So consider this a reaching out between humans. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note of thanks, I'm currently re-writing the archaea page, as a brother article for bacteria, and have found it astoundingly useful to be able to link any of the archaeal genera and have a bluelink appear. Thank you. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow. Per peer review/volunteers I was wondering if you'd be able to take a look at the Recycling article. I've expanded it considerably over the pass month or so, but am so close to the subject now that I'm really hoping to get a fresh perspective, ya know? Particularly, I'm looking for feedback on the POV balance, as it can be a controversial subject. Cheers! -- jwanders Talk 16:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you made a large number of articles with categories like Category:EC_1.19.6 that don't have description pages. When making a new category, please remember to actually create the category page. — Random832 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the textile arts project had an exciting month in February: 7 featured pictures, 2 good articles, and 4 Did you know? entries. There's still time to join our featured portal drive. Our March newsletter has all the developments. Regards, Durova Charge! 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Willow, perchance do you know how to fix a little problem Qp10qp and I are having? If you check out Jane Austen and William Shakespeare, you will notice that they both have "substantive notes" and "reference notes". This is very handy for articles that have lots of details in the notes (we scholarly types!). Anyway, the substantive notes are all made individually, which means that when we add one, the "letters" don't advance in the article, if you see what I mean. One (meaning me in the Austen article, for example), would have to "re-letter") all of the notes following the newly-inserted note to make sure that the notes match up (I hope you can follow this explanation). Anyway, Qp and I want to use this system at Mary Shelley, but we are loathe to introduce it on yet another page that require such high maintenance. Do you think you could figure out how to solve this? I would be ever so grateful. Awadewit | talk 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<ol type=a>as in
Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.
There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).
If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we're finishing up The Scottish Play in the 10th grade class, and it's all I can think about. (It even showed up on The Simpsons last night!) But now, since visiting your talk page, all I can think about is the question of lettered notes. Thanks a lot, Awadewit! =)
I saw the previews for Penelope, but I dunno – like you say, I suppose it's just not my cup of tea. We went to see Cloverfield this weekend, and I enjoyed it. Not the best movie in the world, but it does well what it does. ("I dare do all that may become a movie...") We also watched the South Park Imaginationland DVD. Funny, and juvenile. As one should expect from the creators.
I've been working on Emmy Noether (on my drawing board), and I realized I will have made two FAs out of important women whose names start with Emm-. So the question is: Who will be the third for my hat trick? I must admit I'm unable to think of another. Any ideas? Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
WilowW, the FA-Team have been so magnificent and helpful and generous with your time regarding the WP:MMM. Thank you so much! I feel I shouldn't even think of imposing you any more. But I just thought I'd make you aware that the editors of The General in His Labyrinth are feeling a little overwhelmed. They've made some great progress, and the article is now one of our better ones. But I suspect that a fresh eye and a bit of encouragement would go down very well, if it were at all possible for you to provide them. But please don't feel pressured at all! Thanks again. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was forwarded to you by user Awadewit. This article of mine is currently in FAC. Some reviewers feel the article needs more prose work. Please let me know if you have the time for this. If you dont, please forward me to someone who is good at this and your help will be greatly appreciated.thanks, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for me to predict when these things will go live. I already fixed the things that got my commit from last night reverted, so hopefully what I've done so far will go in the next update. I guess they update every week or two.
But I haven't implemented a note tag yet. I was thinking it might be nice if note and ref could be independent of each other, i.e. support the same options and everything, but numbered differently. We could use some of what you did, with whatever CSS is necessary so the notes list would be numbered the same way, and have some internal prefix to keep the two separate. Or I guess I could just implement note the way I originally planned, and just change the rendering later. - Steve Sanbeg ( talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw your name on the PR volunteer list, so I decided to come to you. The Aang article was kept from FA status mainly for one reason: prose. I would really appreciate it if you could look over the article and provide some comments on the prose or maybe even copyedit it yourself. Thanks. — Parent5446 ( t n c e m l) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy! Happy! Happy! :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 04:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
“ | Nothing can substitute for someone who with their soul encourages another person to be brave and true. | ” |
— Charles Dickens (umm, sort of) |
Hi Willow,
Dunno if you rec'd my email, but if you know anyone reliable who could help with User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art, I'd be deeply in your debt... thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I just tried this, it is quite good. Try going to your preferences link, switching to the gadgets tab and ticking the WikiEd box. Then turn it on when you're editing an article with the button that will appear at the top, right, of your browser window. The shading around a reference is great, it makes the text much easier to read. Tim Vickers ( talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sudar 4edi (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wish this were a barnstar, but it serves the same purpose. Thank you for all of your support and assistance for To Kill a Mockingbird. It would not be where it is in without your help and guidance. Don't tell Harper Lee. She wouldn't like it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
No hungry generations tread thee down;
The voice I hear this passing night was heard
In ancient days by emperor and clown:
Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;
The same that oft-times hath
Charm'd magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.
As to Catullus 10, the version as it was made no sense, and was too far gone to be fixed. It wasn't your fault; it was anonymous users, and with some of them making word-for-word translations and worse, it's hard to tell whether their edits were in good faith or not.
Anyway, remember that not all of Catullus' poems are WP:NOTABLE. I'd say there are only a dozen or so that are (see below). We should stick to improving those pages (remember there's no point in having the article if the poem's not discussed - this is Wikipedia, not WikiSource), and abandon or delete the rest.
Catullus 2 is Catullus' most famous poem, and as such there are tons of sources on it (I'll find some when I have time), and its Wikipedia article is the most extensive. I can find more sources for it, but if we want it to ever be a good article, we need to clean it up, unclog it and remove irrelevant material. Your biography of Catullus was well written, but it really belongs on the Catullus page, not here. Also, there were two different sections on "manuscript tradition", which basically both said the same thing but with different words, so I merged them into one section (a little bit messy; I'll clean it up later). And another thing - I'll look for textual criticism sources (ie. suggested textual emendations), as it's wrong to give the impression that the text of the poem is certain.
List of poems by Catullus is good (I especially like your summary of the themes), but since Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, the "obscenities" section (PG13, etc.) is unnecessary, and makes the article seem a little prudish. Do you mind if I delete that?-- Yolgnu ( talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
All of those have already been made into articles except 62 (quite long, but worth it), 93 (historically important as it is about Catullus' relations with Caesar, and also includes the much discussed "I don't care if you are white or black" line). If there's nothing to say about a poem (which is the case for a lot of the very short ones), it shouldn't be here. If it's not significant in some way or another, we should consider deleting it.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just translated Catullus 10 (although I was a bit confused over lines 11-13) and fixed up List of poems by Catullus (as I said, the obscenities section isn't needed, and since many people know of the poems by their first Latin line rather than their number, I thought it was a good idea to add that), although it'd be nice if you could complete the themes section when you have time (I know you're very busy trying to stop various articles from losing Featured status).
We should think on what to do with not so notable poems like Catullus 14b, 27, 40, 52, 58b, 60, 69, 102 and 116. If we can't find anything notable about them (don't let me rush you - Catullus' poems aren't exactly top priority) - well, as much as I hate to say it, we don't want to clutter Wikipedia with minor Catullus poems. -- Yolgnu ( talk) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should continue our discussion at Talk:Poetry of Catullus, so other people who may have an interest in it can also see/discuss it.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow -- Awadewit mentioned you as someone who might be able to do a "British English" pass on an article. If you have time, could you take a look at Augustine of Canterbury? The FAC for it had a comment that it should really be in British English, and I am not very good at this conversion myself (I didn't nominate the article but I've done a review on it so I'm just trying to help the nominator). If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks. -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever time you can spare is much appreciated. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you could copyedit Phan Đình Phùng? The article seems like it's ready for FAC, but there are 1a issues that need to be resolved. Any help would be great. By the way, excellent work at Action potential! You and Tim have done a 3x expansion in about 10 days! I'll be sure to drop by and see if I can help at all with the referencing. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not love) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you're working on an article on Action potential (much better you than me, so good luck on that). Outside of the talk page of the article I'm working on, I've not asked anyone to look at this yet. Sheepishly, I have to admit I saw Mulholland Drive two weeks ago, and just flipped out, becoming completely consumed with it. However, instead of stalking David Lynch and taking an opportunity to, say, throw curdled chocolate milk on him as would be fitting for someone who apparently likes randomness, I instead went nuts on the article. What it looked like before I got my claws in it on March 31, and of course, you can see what it is today. I more than doubled it in a week. In the afterglow of my frenzy, I'm trying to figure out here what I need to do to make the article try to make sense, a particular issue since the topic is so confusing. This is the first film article I've worked on to such a degree. Right now I'm particularly concerned with arrangement of sections in the article, details that are integral to the film's interpretation and style (as opposed to just interesting or weird stuff), and expanding details that are unclear. Any tips you can give would be appreciated. Perhaps when this is done I should write an essay here on "Passion, obsession, and dedication to an article". Or just take a nap. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know if Harper Lee would like the article since I had to include criticism of the novel. However, I think if I did send it, I would have to explain that even-handed point of view was required, of all the damnable things, and perhaps send along a print of the hit counter for the article, and some of the discussions about what should be included and taken out. I'd ask her for nothing, just send it as an FYI. Thanks so much for looking at MD for me. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok yes, you need to see the film. And let me know what your interpretation is after you've watched it a couple (dozen) times. My interpretation so far hasn't been printed in a reliable secondary source, so I can't include it. Too bad. But I think the widely accepted interpretation is way off the mark. Don't read the article talk page, because I disclose it there.
Brood a lot. I have - no lie - watched this movie, or parts of it, every day for more than 2 weeks. I can take comfort in the fact that really crazy people don't know they're crazy. I, however, know I am quite nuts. My concerns as I may hopefully inch toward a potential FAC, is the Style section (I've not written about cinematic effect before), that the Characters section is long for a film (but characters are essential to this article), issues about identity are nebulous - because they are in the film, that I made a clear point in "Romantic content", and some other loose ends that are vaguely bothering me. If there are sentences that seem to go nowhere for you or just completely baffle you, please let me know. Thanks again, very much, for reading it. Let me know when you see it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow! I've been too busy to improve Lie sphere geometry much recently, but have spruced it up with a few images for this auspicious occasion (assuming I have got my dates right)! Good luck with action potential and have a great wiki-day! Geometry guy 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message! I love the artwork on your user page, and I am looking or some of my own. Tim Vickers IS a very nice user, and he is very helpful. I'll be sure to ask anything! Thanks!-- Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. ( talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know I'm still here for copyediting when you need me. I'm not really able to keep track of what's been done content-wise, so if you wanna just give me a section or five when they're ready, please do. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The DNA Barnstar | |
For for the contribution to wikiimaging. I, Redeemer079, award You this DNA Barnstar. |
From now the wondrous gifs only will satisfyth the remeeder :-) 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The DNA Barnstar | |
As it is stated why I, Redeemer079, linked the picture to this talk page twice. 16 April 2008 |
![]() |
Concordia Star | |
For Your [2] from start till end in the pulp fiction with KP Botany starring in. Redeemer079 16 April 2008 |
Sure, I'll have another look-over. However, my boss is jumping up and down about a paper I should be writing and some of my experiments have finally started working, so my free time is suddenly somewhat limited! Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Less than two hours after I posted the reconstructed Emmy Noether article, she had – without my asking – made eleven edits adding important mathematical and scientific information about topics I could never hope to understand. I feel like there's someone up there watching out for me, bringing me exactly what I need. What else do you call someone like that? – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Silently, one by one, in the infinite meadows of heaven,
Blossomed the lovely stars, the forget-me-nots of the angels.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I love the video — it's SO GOOD! ;) Or maybe radacious bodadical razzberry blue. I especially like the jumping tick creature; so nice that the animators gave her the proper eight legs of an arachnid, like Sleipnir. ;) Speaking of catachresis, Autechre sounds pretty good, and I'm terribly susceptible to their Latin charms. As for action potential, I keep glaring at it and saying, "Give me a reason to love you..." ;) Willow ( talk) 01:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know what you want me to copy edit next on Action potential! Also, thanks for dropping by the Force FAC. So far, we've mostly had people like me saying "I can't read it". You'll see my long list of "ways to improve the prose for the layperson" on the article's talk page. Awadewit ( talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you're the most familiar with what you did, how difficult do you think it would be to refactor your changes into a derived class, instead of modifying the base class? It seems that if we had that, we could just instantiate one of each, to support numbered and lettered notes. - Steve Sanbeg ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, User:Scartol suggested that I ask you for a peer review because they are too busy unfortunately. I would most appreciate it if you could provide feedback for this article: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs ( talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm just messaging you because you seemed interested in the topic at the time and gave me some good advice. Recently, I've started to rewrite the S Club article to take into consideration your comments as well as comments I received on FAC recently (the "make broad strokes before discussing in detail" comment still sticks in my head) and I was wondering if you could take a look at the Hollywood 7 and Viva S Club paragraphs and let me know if this is in the right direction. You don't have to leave comments, just let me know how I'm doing. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 11:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggested Action potential as a project for the FA-Team here. I hope I'm not stepping on any Willow toes. Awadewit ( talk) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could find a way to effectively help, Willow, and I feel incredibly frustrated that my help has all apparently been in the wrong direction or not needed, along with my perennial frustration that the Med Project doesn't engage with FACs and FARs. I can't cite the article; I wish I could. All the best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So I wrote a letter, relatively short (1 1/2 pages), to Ms. Lee. I briefly explained the nature of Wikipedia and the process of a featured article. I haven't sent it because I'm a coward. I keep reading it and thinking it's some of the dumbest English ever produced. If you're curious and would like to see it, drop me an email and I'll send it to you. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there WillowW!
A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.
Here is the diff of the edit they made [3].
Thanks for your help,
Witty Lama 10:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
All the best, Witty Lama 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done the move for you but don't, I'm afraid, have the time (or available concentration) for the second. On top of various online pressures, I currently have the builders in and they are creating their very special own brand of havoc. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
For your Alarming Perfectionism in the Analytical Passion devoted to Assiduously Preserving the Article Placed at Action Potential, I Ardently Propose that you, WillowW, Are Proclaimed the Absolute Pinnacle of Academic Polishing. – Scartol • Tok 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
I found the universe exactly where I expected it, this might just have been a blip in your frame of reference. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat,
They took some honey, and plenty of money,
Wrapped up in a five-pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
'O lovely Pussy! O Pussy, my love,
What a beautiful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beautiful Pussy you are!'
Pussy said to the Owl, 'You elegant fowl!
How charmingly sweet you sing!
O let us be married! too long we have tarried:
But what shall we do for a ring?'
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-tree grows,
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood,
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.
'Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling
Your ring?' Said the Piggy, 'I will.'
So they took it away, and were married next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a runcible spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon,
The moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon. -
Edward Lear by way of
Awadewit
Thank you very much for your help with the textile arts project, and more generally for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. You're appreciated and respected here, and many of us will be looking forward to your swift return. Count me among them. Best and warmest wishes, Durova Charge! 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But, I'm sorry to see you leave. I empathize with you. After a nasty FA in January, I took the entire month of February as a wiki break. And, I reminded myself, if I’m not having fun, then I’m not staying. I hope you do return to Wikipedia…as long as it remains a pleasant hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 05:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Rest yourself up. Its sounds like you need to for your sake as well as the projects. FWIW, I had similar encounters, first during an FARC for battleship Wisconsin and then for the 2nd FAC for the battleship Illinios. Nothing is more physically or mentally exhausting then fighting tooth and nail for something you care so deeply for. We will await your return, when and if you decide to return. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I salute you and your efforts!-- Filll ( talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hoping you find serenity in all things... and drop in for a coffee when you get back. The pot's always on ;) EyeSerene talk 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I still look forward that, one day, we will work together on Origen or Augustine. Or maybe Erasmus? Take care and come back soon. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 13:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As JP is appearing on the main page on the first of March, I feel like we should go back and finish hashing out those sentences. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think enzyme activity might fit best with enzyme catalysis, since it can be argued that since this is what enzymes "do" - this is their "activity". However, some might perfer directing it to enzyme assay, since enzyme activity is also a unit of measurement. In discussing the substrate, you have to remember that methylglyoxal is not the substrate of GLO1, whatever the databases say! The hemithioacetal is what the enzyme binds, and here C1 is linked to the sulphur. I'd follow Thornalley here his review is pretty good. All the best, Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"Lack of metal specificity" is how I'd word it. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You might recognise a new addition to the main Enzyme article. :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've come to request no favors and solicit no assistance. I just wanted to drop by and say hello. When so many days go by without contact from other editors, I can feel distant footsteps echo in the darkness; it's a creepy feeling. (Looks like things have been idle around this talk page for a while too.) So consider this a reaching out between humans. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note of thanks, I'm currently re-writing the archaea page, as a brother article for bacteria, and have found it astoundingly useful to be able to link any of the archaeal genera and have a bluelink appear. Thank you. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow. Per peer review/volunteers I was wondering if you'd be able to take a look at the Recycling article. I've expanded it considerably over the pass month or so, but am so close to the subject now that I'm really hoping to get a fresh perspective, ya know? Particularly, I'm looking for feedback on the POV balance, as it can be a controversial subject. Cheers! -- jwanders Talk 16:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you made a large number of articles with categories like Category:EC_1.19.6 that don't have description pages. When making a new category, please remember to actually create the category page. — Random832 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the textile arts project had an exciting month in February: 7 featured pictures, 2 good articles, and 4 Did you know? entries. There's still time to join our featured portal drive. Our March newsletter has all the developments. Regards, Durova Charge! 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Willow, perchance do you know how to fix a little problem Qp10qp and I are having? If you check out Jane Austen and William Shakespeare, you will notice that they both have "substantive notes" and "reference notes". This is very handy for articles that have lots of details in the notes (we scholarly types!). Anyway, the substantive notes are all made individually, which means that when we add one, the "letters" don't advance in the article, if you see what I mean. One (meaning me in the Austen article, for example), would have to "re-letter") all of the notes following the newly-inserted note to make sure that the notes match up (I hope you can follow this explanation). Anyway, Qp and I want to use this system at Mary Shelley, but we are loathe to introduce it on yet another page that require such high maintenance. Do you think you could figure out how to solve this? I would be ever so grateful. Awadewit | talk 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<ol type=a>as in
Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.
There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).
If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we're finishing up The Scottish Play in the 10th grade class, and it's all I can think about. (It even showed up on The Simpsons last night!) But now, since visiting your talk page, all I can think about is the question of lettered notes. Thanks a lot, Awadewit! =)
I saw the previews for Penelope, but I dunno – like you say, I suppose it's just not my cup of tea. We went to see Cloverfield this weekend, and I enjoyed it. Not the best movie in the world, but it does well what it does. ("I dare do all that may become a movie...") We also watched the South Park Imaginationland DVD. Funny, and juvenile. As one should expect from the creators.
I've been working on Emmy Noether (on my drawing board), and I realized I will have made two FAs out of important women whose names start with Emm-. So the question is: Who will be the third for my hat trick? I must admit I'm unable to think of another. Any ideas? Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
WilowW, the FA-Team have been so magnificent and helpful and generous with your time regarding the WP:MMM. Thank you so much! I feel I shouldn't even think of imposing you any more. But I just thought I'd make you aware that the editors of The General in His Labyrinth are feeling a little overwhelmed. They've made some great progress, and the article is now one of our better ones. But I suspect that a fresh eye and a bit of encouragement would go down very well, if it were at all possible for you to provide them. But please don't feel pressured at all! Thanks again. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was forwarded to you by user Awadewit. This article of mine is currently in FAC. Some reviewers feel the article needs more prose work. Please let me know if you have the time for this. If you dont, please forward me to someone who is good at this and your help will be greatly appreciated.thanks, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for me to predict when these things will go live. I already fixed the things that got my commit from last night reverted, so hopefully what I've done so far will go in the next update. I guess they update every week or two.
But I haven't implemented a note tag yet. I was thinking it might be nice if note and ref could be independent of each other, i.e. support the same options and everything, but numbered differently. We could use some of what you did, with whatever CSS is necessary so the notes list would be numbered the same way, and have some internal prefix to keep the two separate. Or I guess I could just implement note the way I originally planned, and just change the rendering later. - Steve Sanbeg ( talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw your name on the PR volunteer list, so I decided to come to you. The Aang article was kept from FA status mainly for one reason: prose. I would really appreciate it if you could look over the article and provide some comments on the prose or maybe even copyedit it yourself. Thanks. — Parent5446 ( t n c e m l) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy! Happy! Happy! :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 04:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
“ | Nothing can substitute for someone who with their soul encourages another person to be brave and true. | ” |
— Charles Dickens (umm, sort of) |
Hi Willow,
Dunno if you rec'd my email, but if you know anyone reliable who could help with User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art, I'd be deeply in your debt... thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I just tried this, it is quite good. Try going to your preferences link, switching to the gadgets tab and ticking the WikiEd box. Then turn it on when you're editing an article with the button that will appear at the top, right, of your browser window. The shading around a reference is great, it makes the text much easier to read. Tim Vickers ( talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sudar 4edi (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wish this were a barnstar, but it serves the same purpose. Thank you for all of your support and assistance for To Kill a Mockingbird. It would not be where it is in without your help and guidance. Don't tell Harper Lee. She wouldn't like it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
No hungry generations tread thee down;
The voice I hear this passing night was heard
In ancient days by emperor and clown:
Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;
The same that oft-times hath
Charm'd magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.
As to Catullus 10, the version as it was made no sense, and was too far gone to be fixed. It wasn't your fault; it was anonymous users, and with some of them making word-for-word translations and worse, it's hard to tell whether their edits were in good faith or not.
Anyway, remember that not all of Catullus' poems are WP:NOTABLE. I'd say there are only a dozen or so that are (see below). We should stick to improving those pages (remember there's no point in having the article if the poem's not discussed - this is Wikipedia, not WikiSource), and abandon or delete the rest.
Catullus 2 is Catullus' most famous poem, and as such there are tons of sources on it (I'll find some when I have time), and its Wikipedia article is the most extensive. I can find more sources for it, but if we want it to ever be a good article, we need to clean it up, unclog it and remove irrelevant material. Your biography of Catullus was well written, but it really belongs on the Catullus page, not here. Also, there were two different sections on "manuscript tradition", which basically both said the same thing but with different words, so I merged them into one section (a little bit messy; I'll clean it up later). And another thing - I'll look for textual criticism sources (ie. suggested textual emendations), as it's wrong to give the impression that the text of the poem is certain.
List of poems by Catullus is good (I especially like your summary of the themes), but since Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, the "obscenities" section (PG13, etc.) is unnecessary, and makes the article seem a little prudish. Do you mind if I delete that?-- Yolgnu ( talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
All of those have already been made into articles except 62 (quite long, but worth it), 93 (historically important as it is about Catullus' relations with Caesar, and also includes the much discussed "I don't care if you are white or black" line). If there's nothing to say about a poem (which is the case for a lot of the very short ones), it shouldn't be here. If it's not significant in some way or another, we should consider deleting it.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just translated Catullus 10 (although I was a bit confused over lines 11-13) and fixed up List of poems by Catullus (as I said, the obscenities section isn't needed, and since many people know of the poems by their first Latin line rather than their number, I thought it was a good idea to add that), although it'd be nice if you could complete the themes section when you have time (I know you're very busy trying to stop various articles from losing Featured status).
We should think on what to do with not so notable poems like Catullus 14b, 27, 40, 52, 58b, 60, 69, 102 and 116. If we can't find anything notable about them (don't let me rush you - Catullus' poems aren't exactly top priority) - well, as much as I hate to say it, we don't want to clutter Wikipedia with minor Catullus poems. -- Yolgnu ( talk) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should continue our discussion at Talk:Poetry of Catullus, so other people who may have an interest in it can also see/discuss it.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow -- Awadewit mentioned you as someone who might be able to do a "British English" pass on an article. If you have time, could you take a look at Augustine of Canterbury? The FAC for it had a comment that it should really be in British English, and I am not very good at this conversion myself (I didn't nominate the article but I've done a review on it so I'm just trying to help the nominator). If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks. -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever time you can spare is much appreciated. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you could copyedit Phan Đình Phùng? The article seems like it's ready for FAC, but there are 1a issues that need to be resolved. Any help would be great. By the way, excellent work at Action potential! You and Tim have done a 3x expansion in about 10 days! I'll be sure to drop by and see if I can help at all with the referencing. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not love) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you're working on an article on Action potential (much better you than me, so good luck on that). Outside of the talk page of the article I'm working on, I've not asked anyone to look at this yet. Sheepishly, I have to admit I saw Mulholland Drive two weeks ago, and just flipped out, becoming completely consumed with it. However, instead of stalking David Lynch and taking an opportunity to, say, throw curdled chocolate milk on him as would be fitting for someone who apparently likes randomness, I instead went nuts on the article. What it looked like before I got my claws in it on March 31, and of course, you can see what it is today. I more than doubled it in a week. In the afterglow of my frenzy, I'm trying to figure out here what I need to do to make the article try to make sense, a particular issue since the topic is so confusing. This is the first film article I've worked on to such a degree. Right now I'm particularly concerned with arrangement of sections in the article, details that are integral to the film's interpretation and style (as opposed to just interesting or weird stuff), and expanding details that are unclear. Any tips you can give would be appreciated. Perhaps when this is done I should write an essay here on "Passion, obsession, and dedication to an article". Or just take a nap. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know if Harper Lee would like the article since I had to include criticism of the novel. However, I think if I did send it, I would have to explain that even-handed point of view was required, of all the damnable things, and perhaps send along a print of the hit counter for the article, and some of the discussions about what should be included and taken out. I'd ask her for nothing, just send it as an FYI. Thanks so much for looking at MD for me. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok yes, you need to see the film. And let me know what your interpretation is after you've watched it a couple (dozen) times. My interpretation so far hasn't been printed in a reliable secondary source, so I can't include it. Too bad. But I think the widely accepted interpretation is way off the mark. Don't read the article talk page, because I disclose it there.
Brood a lot. I have - no lie - watched this movie, or parts of it, every day for more than 2 weeks. I can take comfort in the fact that really crazy people don't know they're crazy. I, however, know I am quite nuts. My concerns as I may hopefully inch toward a potential FAC, is the Style section (I've not written about cinematic effect before), that the Characters section is long for a film (but characters are essential to this article), issues about identity are nebulous - because they are in the film, that I made a clear point in "Romantic content", and some other loose ends that are vaguely bothering me. If there are sentences that seem to go nowhere for you or just completely baffle you, please let me know. Thanks again, very much, for reading it. Let me know when you see it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow! I've been too busy to improve Lie sphere geometry much recently, but have spruced it up with a few images for this auspicious occasion (assuming I have got my dates right)! Good luck with action potential and have a great wiki-day! Geometry guy 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message! I love the artwork on your user page, and I am looking or some of my own. Tim Vickers IS a very nice user, and he is very helpful. I'll be sure to ask anything! Thanks!-- Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. ( talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know I'm still here for copyediting when you need me. I'm not really able to keep track of what's been done content-wise, so if you wanna just give me a section or five when they're ready, please do. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The DNA Barnstar | |
For for the contribution to wikiimaging. I, Redeemer079, award You this DNA Barnstar. |
From now the wondrous gifs only will satisfyth the remeeder :-) 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The DNA Barnstar | |
As it is stated why I, Redeemer079, linked the picture to this talk page twice. 16 April 2008 |
![]() |
Concordia Star | |
For Your [2] from start till end in the pulp fiction with KP Botany starring in. Redeemer079 16 April 2008 |
Sure, I'll have another look-over. However, my boss is jumping up and down about a paper I should be writing and some of my experiments have finally started working, so my free time is suddenly somewhat limited! Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Less than two hours after I posted the reconstructed Emmy Noether article, she had – without my asking – made eleven edits adding important mathematical and scientific information about topics I could never hope to understand. I feel like there's someone up there watching out for me, bringing me exactly what I need. What else do you call someone like that? – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Silently, one by one, in the infinite meadows of heaven,
Blossomed the lovely stars, the forget-me-nots of the angels.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I love the video — it's SO GOOD! ;) Or maybe radacious bodadical razzberry blue. I especially like the jumping tick creature; so nice that the animators gave her the proper eight legs of an arachnid, like Sleipnir. ;) Speaking of catachresis, Autechre sounds pretty good, and I'm terribly susceptible to their Latin charms. As for action potential, I keep glaring at it and saying, "Give me a reason to love you..." ;) Willow ( talk) 01:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know what you want me to copy edit next on Action potential! Also, thanks for dropping by the Force FAC. So far, we've mostly had people like me saying "I can't read it". You'll see my long list of "ways to improve the prose for the layperson" on the article's talk page. Awadewit ( talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you're the most familiar with what you did, how difficult do you think it would be to refactor your changes into a derived class, instead of modifying the base class? It seems that if we had that, we could just instantiate one of each, to support numbered and lettered notes. - Steve Sanbeg ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, User:Scartol suggested that I ask you for a peer review because they are too busy unfortunately. I would most appreciate it if you could provide feedback for this article: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs ( talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm just messaging you because you seemed interested in the topic at the time and gave me some good advice. Recently, I've started to rewrite the S Club article to take into consideration your comments as well as comments I received on FAC recently (the "make broad strokes before discussing in detail" comment still sticks in my head) and I was wondering if you could take a look at the Hollywood 7 and Viva S Club paragraphs and let me know if this is in the right direction. You don't have to leave comments, just let me know how I'm doing. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 11:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggested Action potential as a project for the FA-Team here. I hope I'm not stepping on any Willow toes. Awadewit ( talk) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could find a way to effectively help, Willow, and I feel incredibly frustrated that my help has all apparently been in the wrong direction or not needed, along with my perennial frustration that the Med Project doesn't engage with FACs and FARs. I can't cite the article; I wish I could. All the best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So I wrote a letter, relatively short (1 1/2 pages), to Ms. Lee. I briefly explained the nature of Wikipedia and the process of a featured article. I haven't sent it because I'm a coward. I keep reading it and thinking it's some of the dumbest English ever produced. If you're curious and would like to see it, drop me an email and I'll send it to you. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there WillowW!
A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.
Here is the diff of the edit they made [3].
Thanks for your help,
Witty Lama 10:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
All the best, Witty Lama 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done the move for you but don't, I'm afraid, have the time (or available concentration) for the second. On top of various online pressures, I currently have the builders in and they are creating their very special own brand of havoc. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
For your Alarming Perfectionism in the Analytical Passion devoted to Assiduously Preserving the Article Placed at Action Potential, I Ardently Propose that you, WillowW, Are Proclaimed the Absolute Pinnacle of Academic Polishing. – Scartol • Tok 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
I found the universe exactly where I expected it, this might just have been a blip in your frame of reference. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat,
They took some honey, and plenty of money,
Wrapped up in a five-pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
'O lovely Pussy! O Pussy, my love,
What a beautiful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beautiful Pussy you are!'
Pussy said to the Owl, 'You elegant fowl!
How charmingly sweet you sing!
O let us be married! too long we have tarried:
But what shall we do for a ring?'
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-tree grows,
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood,
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.
'Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling
Your ring?' Said the Piggy, 'I will.'
So they took it away, and were married next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a runcible spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon,
The moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon. -
Edward Lear by way of
Awadewit
Thank you very much for your help with the textile arts project, and more generally for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. You're appreciated and respected here, and many of us will be looking forward to your swift return. Count me among them. Best and warmest wishes, Durova Charge! 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But, I'm sorry to see you leave. I empathize with you. After a nasty FA in January, I took the entire month of February as a wiki break. And, I reminded myself, if I’m not having fun, then I’m not staying. I hope you do return to Wikipedia…as long as it remains a pleasant hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 05:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Rest yourself up. Its sounds like you need to for your sake as well as the projects. FWIW, I had similar encounters, first during an FARC for battleship Wisconsin and then for the 2nd FAC for the battleship Illinios. Nothing is more physically or mentally exhausting then fighting tooth and nail for something you care so deeply for. We will await your return, when and if you decide to return. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I salute you and your efforts!-- Filll ( talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hoping you find serenity in all things... and drop in for a coffee when you get back. The pot's always on ;) EyeSerene talk 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I still look forward that, one day, we will work together on Origen or Augustine. Or maybe Erasmus? Take care and come back soon. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 13:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)