I know you said don't write, but I listened to the new Portishead album yesterday and thought of you. Mostly because I didn't really care for it (it's more noisy and messy than 1 and 2), and I thought you might want to have a listen before you buy. Or maybe you're already rockin' out to it and I'm totally wrong. I hope you're resting well. – Scartol • Tok 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Only someone with a heart of stone could not be moved by your kindnesses. :) I'm sorry for being an inconstant companion, but I am thinking of you all as much as you are of me. Sometimes I feel healthy and ready to throw myself off cliffs again, hoping my wings will unfurl on the way down; but other times I get mopey and useless, so I know that I need to rest more. My garden is a wonderful retreat, and I've been busy in it, weeding and plowing and harvesting platefuls of asparagus; the magnolia blossoms have come and gone, and the bees are thronging around my berry bushes. I've been knitting and working as usual and doing other charity work, so that helps as well.
Just so that no one gets the wrong impression, action potential didn't cause me to take a holiday, at least not directly; it was rather — something personal, something important I'd left undone for too long. I'm sorry for causing concern and overall being a bother, but I hope you'll generously forgive me my foibles; it wasn't done lightly. I'll try to ooze back into helping out here and there, but please don't expect too much from me for the next few weeks. I still need quiet time, to find serenity again.
Thank you for making me smile through tears, sunshine in rain, Willow ( talk) 05:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought once how Theocritus had sung
Of the sweet years, the dear and wished-for years,
Who each one in a gracious hand appears
To bear a gift for mortals old or young:
And, as I mused it in his antique tongue,
I saw in gradual vision through my tears
The sweet, sad years, the melancholy years -
Those of my own life, who by turns had flung
A shadow across me. Straightway I was 'ware,
So weeping, how a mystic Shape did move
Behind me, and drew me backward by the hair;
And a voice said in mastery, while I strove,
"Guess now who holds thee?" -"Death," I said. But there
The silver answer rang -"Not Death, but Love."
I wanna live.
I wanna give.
I've been a miner
for a heart of gold.
It's these expressions
I never give.
That keep me searching
For a heart of gold
And I'm getting old.
Good to see you editing Problem of Apollonius again. I hadn't been watchlisting your user page (I keep my watchlist very very small), so I didn't know until now that you were seeking rest and recuperation after the trials of Action potential etc. Take whatever time you need, but enjoy whatever editing you can. I will try to help out at Problem of Apollonius, but I am travelling this weekend, so I can't promise very much. Your reflection of Wikipedia shows its beautiness, and it is a mirror which I, and many others, value greatly, in addition to your amazing contributions. Geometry guy 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey best friend, I know you're not back (at least this is what I surmise from the unchanged userpage), but I saw your comment at WikiProject Math and figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
Dear Emmy is nearly ready for FAC, I believe. Two peer reviews have been performed, and the biography has been polished repeatedly. Alas, a small task awaits in the depths of the mathematics section. I wonder if you might be willing to quickly and – without feeling any pressure – have a look. Perhaps you'd like to add a few words, drawing on your gift for context and explanation of the complex sublime to those of us who need calculators for long division. (Your fantastic guide has helped me feel less ignorant, but not nearly knowledgeable enough to take this on.)
The first peer review says: "I wonder if some of the mathematical concepts need to be explained a bit better. Most non-mathematicians won't know what Galois theory is, for example. The sections on Galois theory and invariant theory especially left me a bit lost. I could follow the others for the most part." I expect that if a few more sentences of context were added to each of these subsections, we'd be ready to roll.
The last thing in the world I want to do is add a burden, but I – like Princess Leia – am sending you an R2 unit, in the hopes that you can help me out. (If not, I understand completely and apologize beforehand for asking.) I hope you're well. – Scartol • Tok 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your generosity shall be rewarded tenfold by my patience. I thank you infinitely and I'm very glad to hear from you again. – Scartol • Tok 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Willow. I appreciate your dedication to this, and while I think we just need a bit more in the two sections mentioned above, I thank you kindly for your larger revisions of the math/physics sections. I look forward to finally sending it down the river of FAC. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. The information you added looks great – I feel that those sections are really comprehensive now. (I worry that some of the prose is a little conversational, but that can be remedied in a CE.) Do you think we need more maths people looking in? We have had quite a few contributing already, and I worry about too many cooks overloading the broth. (After all, it's a biography, not an intro to the fields.) I worry about making that section too dense. (Obviously the list of publications is a different matter – you can decide how to proceed on that one.) As always I thank you, and I really do think we're getting close to FAC time. What do you think? – Scartol • Tok 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, you're right. I've never been very good at being patient, so I will always defer to those who counsel it – they are invariably right. I dropped a note to the WikiProject Math people, and also to Karanacs, who had asked for more on Galois and Invariant theories during the peer review. Thank you for slowing me down, and although I just bugged the mighty A for a review of lil' Louis, I'd love to have her eyes on this too. I'd thank you again but I feel like I'm getting wicked repetitive. – Scartol • Tok 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your feedback, Jack! Do you have any thoughts about the new comments on the article's talk page? (Willow, you or other math-literate folks will have to respond to those suggestions.)
I actually came by to tell you, Best Friend in the Whole World™, that I've nominated Louis Louis to FAC. I tell you this only so you know that it's impossible for me to rush the Emmy nom, since I can't have more than one article in the FAC stream at once. So at the very least, we have a time barrier between now and whenever that FAC closes. That should keep my pesky impatience at bay. (And it gives me something else to do, heh.)
I'd end with a renewed round of thanks to you for all your help, but I worry that I'm getting melodramatic and repetitive. So instead I'll just quote some Shakespeare. Ahem. "Hey, morons! I was real! Quit saying I was Francis Bacon!" (I forget which play that's from.) – Scartol • Tok 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi WillowW, I see your are listed as a volunteer for Peer Review For Copy Editing and need your expertise. This is a request for additional peer-review of article Anekantavada. This article had been peer-reviewed by Ruhrfisch ( talk · contribs) who suggested that some copyediting is required. Besides peer review I would also appreciate active improvements on this article (like copy editing, tagging for citations/ NPOV, wikifying links etcs and other stylistic concerns) That is, if you have time. The problem is not a single article relating Jainism is a featured or A-class article and all the articles are in a pathetic state. Hence I would doubly appreciate your efforts. -- Anish ( talk) 07:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Even though you have not gotten much response yet, please keep trying to get WP Math involved. For instance, please update WT:MATH when the first FAC response is given, so that we can help address any concerns. I looked over the article, and honestly it is much too good for me to help at this stage. The lead is too long for my tastes, but it is very well written. It seems comprehensive to me, but I am no expert in classical geometry. I will try to help when the first critique is given.
Congratulations on writing such a good article, by the way. At the very least you should keep in touch at WP Math to remind us what a good article looks like! JackSchmidt ( talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to my recommending Problem of Apollonius to the FA Team? I see some things I'd like to change, but I'd rather have the team looking over my shoulder when I do it. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 23:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Line breaks are a trivial thing, and I hate to bring them up for fear that no one will let me near their FACs, but consider how odd the line "Figure 1)—in technical" will look if it breaks so that the line starts with "1)—in". This could be fixed by either a no-break space in front of the 1 or a spaced en-dash (or if you really want to give Tony a yank, a spaced em-dash :)
2. Some people will argue that the em-dashes should be done with html code. I don't have a preference, but have your argument ready.
3. I think people prefer "262 BC – ca." (with spaces) to "262 BC–ca.", because of the spaces in "262 BC" etc. (Wow, my first 3 comments are on dashes. How impressive.)
4. "4th century" doesn't take a hyphen, "4th-century report" does.
RfA: Many thanks | ||
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for pointing me to the Noether article and sorry for the late reply. This is excellent work! I just fixed a couple of minor things and left a note at Talk:Emmy Noether regarding a couple of points that might be improved. Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
On George Harris Lorimer, editor of the Saturday Evening Post: "I decided he generally liked a success story with a noble main character, tangled up with a little sex and a few cuss words thrown in. A perfect opening for a Lorimer story was something like: 'Hell,' said the Duchess, 'Take your hand off my knee.'" - Marjory
I thought that was hilarious and laughed out loud for five minutes when I read it. I think I got everyone merely passing by to read this section with such a subheading, (and to think I'm special). -- Moni3 ( talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Hey Willow, how have you been? You still remember me from our work together on Catullus, I hope? That was quite a while ago and I'm afraid I've since mutated into a radical demoticist, much more interested in Vulgar Latin and its descendants than its more cultivated counterpart (I'm a linguist at heart, not a literary theorist), but if you ever need help on Catullus (I gave List of poems by Catullus a facelift while you were away), just give me a call.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 12:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Willow. I am looking for someone to copyedit Textual criticism, which I am working on toward FA status. Interested? Drop me a line if so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow, thanks for contacting me. I had the impression from the message on your userpage that you had left Wikipedia. I would like to work on the Catullus articles, as I am very interested in the topic. I know that you have done a great deal of work on them. What is your plan in the near term? Let me know so that we can avoid duplication of effort. Personally, I would like to start by moving certain sections to WikiSource, while keeping the encyclopedic, sourced portions on Wikipedia. How about you? Aramgar ( talk) 04:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop tagging the articles for moving to Wikisource. If you've read our discussions, you know that's not what we want; hence, there's no consensus. If you really want to contribute something to the poetry of Catullus and not destroy others' work, then dig up some scholarly references like those that I've placed on the pages you're tagging. If you're incapable or unwilling to do that, then at least please wait until both Yolgnu and I are free to Talk with you about what to do with the articles. Willow ( talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
For her hard work in bringing the List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein far above the featured list criteria, where it'll stand as a giant amongst giants. Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
Yay! Congrats, W. – Scartol • Tok 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wish that it would gather more comments from regular joes but since people are scared by physics articles with fancy words (spin, flavour etc...) they just aren't interested. Sure the topic is advanced, but it's not incomprehensible if properly explained (although it's very hard to find proper explanations - I couldn't find any so I've locked myself in my room for over a month to figure things out). Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It reads pretty well, yeay! :) I still need to finish writing up her work on invariant theory and elimination theory; that means, gulp, that I'll have to finish understanding it. ;) But I think you're ready for FAC, anyway. They're like flower-petals strewn on the path of fire; maybe people won't notice that they're missing at first? Willow ( talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel as though I've been baptized and crowned with glory. ;) All this time, my friends' user pages were getting vandalized over and over, and I was being ignored? I was feeling pretty bad about myself — am I so insignificant that even the vandals ignore me? But now I feel like a princess at Wikipedia: attacked by multiple vandals at multiple sites and, more importantly, defended by my dearest friends here. Thank you all! :) Willow ( talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. In medieval times, a fool could teach even a self-satisfied princess humility, and also not to take herself too seriously. In that spirit, I think I'll start a new scrapbook just for such salutary vandalism. :) Willow ( talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It was interesting! Two years+ of nothing, and then they attacked a lot of my recent edit-places all at once: both the lists of publications ( Emmy and Albert), Emmy herself, a handful of Catullus poems, action potential, and the problem of Apollonius. I'm guessing that they found the Einstein list first, being re-directed from the high-traffic Albert Einstein article, and then decided to go on a little vandal-spree. It was also interesting that they went to the trouble of making two user accounts, User:PillowP (my favourite!) and User:DerMetzgerMeister9 (roughly, "The Master Butcher #9"), and of learning some wiki-markup. It's also funny that the vandalism put me in a much better mood than I was earlier in the week. :) Willow ( talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. "Toe-up" socks are ones that are knit beginning at the toe, which allows for a nifty invisible cast-on and for trying them on as you go. It's the sock analog of top-down sweaters — although you might not find that analogy very enlightening. ;) Socks are usually knit from the cuff down or from the toe up, although you can start pretty much anywhere if inspiration strikes. I prefer toe-up generally; sometimes to amuse myself, I'll reproduce a cuff-down sock as a toe-up sock. It's a little like brushing your teeth left-handed for fun. ;) Only slightly weird Willow ( talk) 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A glass of fire | ||
So that whatever you drink will always be inspiring, you will always be thirsty, and it will never run out. -- Moni3 ( talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
Don't ever be confused or wonder what your next article will be. Drink, and you will know.
Humorously, I got the idea for the Neurotic's Guide to Writing an FA from a topic on the the WP:FAC talk page (thank you, jbmurray). Step one is admitting you're brain is on fire and won't go out until you hammer and pound words out of your head. But even when that happens, coals lie quiet until the next bucket of fuel comes along. Sometimes when I sleep, I hear words from a script that make no sense repeated over and over: "You look like someone else", "Good night, sweet Betty", "You've come back!" I wake up with the sound of the wind whipping across sawgrass plains, feeling sunburned, exhausted, and raw.
Some coals burn deeper and longer than others, and aren't consumed completely. Those coals are patient. Keep those safe. You have two glasses so you can pass one along to someone else.
Thank you for your help and inspiration. -- Moni3 ( talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you said don't write, but I listened to the new Portishead album yesterday and thought of you. Mostly because I didn't really care for it (it's more noisy and messy than 1 and 2), and I thought you might want to have a listen before you buy. Or maybe you're already rockin' out to it and I'm totally wrong. I hope you're resting well. – Scartol • Tok 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Only someone with a heart of stone could not be moved by your kindnesses. :) I'm sorry for being an inconstant companion, but I am thinking of you all as much as you are of me. Sometimes I feel healthy and ready to throw myself off cliffs again, hoping my wings will unfurl on the way down; but other times I get mopey and useless, so I know that I need to rest more. My garden is a wonderful retreat, and I've been busy in it, weeding and plowing and harvesting platefuls of asparagus; the magnolia blossoms have come and gone, and the bees are thronging around my berry bushes. I've been knitting and working as usual and doing other charity work, so that helps as well.
Just so that no one gets the wrong impression, action potential didn't cause me to take a holiday, at least not directly; it was rather — something personal, something important I'd left undone for too long. I'm sorry for causing concern and overall being a bother, but I hope you'll generously forgive me my foibles; it wasn't done lightly. I'll try to ooze back into helping out here and there, but please don't expect too much from me for the next few weeks. I still need quiet time, to find serenity again.
Thank you for making me smile through tears, sunshine in rain, Willow ( talk) 05:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought once how Theocritus had sung
Of the sweet years, the dear and wished-for years,
Who each one in a gracious hand appears
To bear a gift for mortals old or young:
And, as I mused it in his antique tongue,
I saw in gradual vision through my tears
The sweet, sad years, the melancholy years -
Those of my own life, who by turns had flung
A shadow across me. Straightway I was 'ware,
So weeping, how a mystic Shape did move
Behind me, and drew me backward by the hair;
And a voice said in mastery, while I strove,
"Guess now who holds thee?" -"Death," I said. But there
The silver answer rang -"Not Death, but Love."
I wanna live.
I wanna give.
I've been a miner
for a heart of gold.
It's these expressions
I never give.
That keep me searching
For a heart of gold
And I'm getting old.
Good to see you editing Problem of Apollonius again. I hadn't been watchlisting your user page (I keep my watchlist very very small), so I didn't know until now that you were seeking rest and recuperation after the trials of Action potential etc. Take whatever time you need, but enjoy whatever editing you can. I will try to help out at Problem of Apollonius, but I am travelling this weekend, so I can't promise very much. Your reflection of Wikipedia shows its beautiness, and it is a mirror which I, and many others, value greatly, in addition to your amazing contributions. Geometry guy 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey best friend, I know you're not back (at least this is what I surmise from the unchanged userpage), but I saw your comment at WikiProject Math and figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
Dear Emmy is nearly ready for FAC, I believe. Two peer reviews have been performed, and the biography has been polished repeatedly. Alas, a small task awaits in the depths of the mathematics section. I wonder if you might be willing to quickly and – without feeling any pressure – have a look. Perhaps you'd like to add a few words, drawing on your gift for context and explanation of the complex sublime to those of us who need calculators for long division. (Your fantastic guide has helped me feel less ignorant, but not nearly knowledgeable enough to take this on.)
The first peer review says: "I wonder if some of the mathematical concepts need to be explained a bit better. Most non-mathematicians won't know what Galois theory is, for example. The sections on Galois theory and invariant theory especially left me a bit lost. I could follow the others for the most part." I expect that if a few more sentences of context were added to each of these subsections, we'd be ready to roll.
The last thing in the world I want to do is add a burden, but I – like Princess Leia – am sending you an R2 unit, in the hopes that you can help me out. (If not, I understand completely and apologize beforehand for asking.) I hope you're well. – Scartol • Tok 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your generosity shall be rewarded tenfold by my patience. I thank you infinitely and I'm very glad to hear from you again. – Scartol • Tok 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Willow. I appreciate your dedication to this, and while I think we just need a bit more in the two sections mentioned above, I thank you kindly for your larger revisions of the math/physics sections. I look forward to finally sending it down the river of FAC. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. The information you added looks great – I feel that those sections are really comprehensive now. (I worry that some of the prose is a little conversational, but that can be remedied in a CE.) Do you think we need more maths people looking in? We have had quite a few contributing already, and I worry about too many cooks overloading the broth. (After all, it's a biography, not an intro to the fields.) I worry about making that section too dense. (Obviously the list of publications is a different matter – you can decide how to proceed on that one.) As always I thank you, and I really do think we're getting close to FAC time. What do you think? – Scartol • Tok 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, you're right. I've never been very good at being patient, so I will always defer to those who counsel it – they are invariably right. I dropped a note to the WikiProject Math people, and also to Karanacs, who had asked for more on Galois and Invariant theories during the peer review. Thank you for slowing me down, and although I just bugged the mighty A for a review of lil' Louis, I'd love to have her eyes on this too. I'd thank you again but I feel like I'm getting wicked repetitive. – Scartol • Tok 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your feedback, Jack! Do you have any thoughts about the new comments on the article's talk page? (Willow, you or other math-literate folks will have to respond to those suggestions.)
I actually came by to tell you, Best Friend in the Whole World™, that I've nominated Louis Louis to FAC. I tell you this only so you know that it's impossible for me to rush the Emmy nom, since I can't have more than one article in the FAC stream at once. So at the very least, we have a time barrier between now and whenever that FAC closes. That should keep my pesky impatience at bay. (And it gives me something else to do, heh.)
I'd end with a renewed round of thanks to you for all your help, but I worry that I'm getting melodramatic and repetitive. So instead I'll just quote some Shakespeare. Ahem. "Hey, morons! I was real! Quit saying I was Francis Bacon!" (I forget which play that's from.) – Scartol • Tok 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi WillowW, I see your are listed as a volunteer for Peer Review For Copy Editing and need your expertise. This is a request for additional peer-review of article Anekantavada. This article had been peer-reviewed by Ruhrfisch ( talk · contribs) who suggested that some copyediting is required. Besides peer review I would also appreciate active improvements on this article (like copy editing, tagging for citations/ NPOV, wikifying links etcs and other stylistic concerns) That is, if you have time. The problem is not a single article relating Jainism is a featured or A-class article and all the articles are in a pathetic state. Hence I would doubly appreciate your efforts. -- Anish ( talk) 07:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Even though you have not gotten much response yet, please keep trying to get WP Math involved. For instance, please update WT:MATH when the first FAC response is given, so that we can help address any concerns. I looked over the article, and honestly it is much too good for me to help at this stage. The lead is too long for my tastes, but it is very well written. It seems comprehensive to me, but I am no expert in classical geometry. I will try to help when the first critique is given.
Congratulations on writing such a good article, by the way. At the very least you should keep in touch at WP Math to remind us what a good article looks like! JackSchmidt ( talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to my recommending Problem of Apollonius to the FA Team? I see some things I'd like to change, but I'd rather have the team looking over my shoulder when I do it. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 23:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Line breaks are a trivial thing, and I hate to bring them up for fear that no one will let me near their FACs, but consider how odd the line "Figure 1)—in technical" will look if it breaks so that the line starts with "1)—in". This could be fixed by either a no-break space in front of the 1 or a spaced en-dash (or if you really want to give Tony a yank, a spaced em-dash :)
2. Some people will argue that the em-dashes should be done with html code. I don't have a preference, but have your argument ready.
3. I think people prefer "262 BC – ca." (with spaces) to "262 BC–ca.", because of the spaces in "262 BC" etc. (Wow, my first 3 comments are on dashes. How impressive.)
4. "4th century" doesn't take a hyphen, "4th-century report" does.
RfA: Many thanks | ||
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for pointing me to the Noether article and sorry for the late reply. This is excellent work! I just fixed a couple of minor things and left a note at Talk:Emmy Noether regarding a couple of points that might be improved. Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
On George Harris Lorimer, editor of the Saturday Evening Post: "I decided he generally liked a success story with a noble main character, tangled up with a little sex and a few cuss words thrown in. A perfect opening for a Lorimer story was something like: 'Hell,' said the Duchess, 'Take your hand off my knee.'" - Marjory
I thought that was hilarious and laughed out loud for five minutes when I read it. I think I got everyone merely passing by to read this section with such a subheading, (and to think I'm special). -- Moni3 ( talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Hey Willow, how have you been? You still remember me from our work together on Catullus, I hope? That was quite a while ago and I'm afraid I've since mutated into a radical demoticist, much more interested in Vulgar Latin and its descendants than its more cultivated counterpart (I'm a linguist at heart, not a literary theorist), but if you ever need help on Catullus (I gave List of poems by Catullus a facelift while you were away), just give me a call.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 12:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Willow. I am looking for someone to copyedit Textual criticism, which I am working on toward FA status. Interested? Drop me a line if so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Willow, thanks for contacting me. I had the impression from the message on your userpage that you had left Wikipedia. I would like to work on the Catullus articles, as I am very interested in the topic. I know that you have done a great deal of work on them. What is your plan in the near term? Let me know so that we can avoid duplication of effort. Personally, I would like to start by moving certain sections to WikiSource, while keeping the encyclopedic, sourced portions on Wikipedia. How about you? Aramgar ( talk) 04:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop tagging the articles for moving to Wikisource. If you've read our discussions, you know that's not what we want; hence, there's no consensus. If you really want to contribute something to the poetry of Catullus and not destroy others' work, then dig up some scholarly references like those that I've placed on the pages you're tagging. If you're incapable or unwilling to do that, then at least please wait until both Yolgnu and I are free to Talk with you about what to do with the articles. Willow ( talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
For her hard work in bringing the List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein far above the featured list criteria, where it'll stand as a giant amongst giants. Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
Yay! Congrats, W. – Scartol • Tok 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wish that it would gather more comments from regular joes but since people are scared by physics articles with fancy words (spin, flavour etc...) they just aren't interested. Sure the topic is advanced, but it's not incomprehensible if properly explained (although it's very hard to find proper explanations - I couldn't find any so I've locked myself in my room for over a month to figure things out). Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It reads pretty well, yeay! :) I still need to finish writing up her work on invariant theory and elimination theory; that means, gulp, that I'll have to finish understanding it. ;) But I think you're ready for FAC, anyway. They're like flower-petals strewn on the path of fire; maybe people won't notice that they're missing at first? Willow ( talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel as though I've been baptized and crowned with glory. ;) All this time, my friends' user pages were getting vandalized over and over, and I was being ignored? I was feeling pretty bad about myself — am I so insignificant that even the vandals ignore me? But now I feel like a princess at Wikipedia: attacked by multiple vandals at multiple sites and, more importantly, defended by my dearest friends here. Thank you all! :) Willow ( talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. In medieval times, a fool could teach even a self-satisfied princess humility, and also not to take herself too seriously. In that spirit, I think I'll start a new scrapbook just for such salutary vandalism. :) Willow ( talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It was interesting! Two years+ of nothing, and then they attacked a lot of my recent edit-places all at once: both the lists of publications ( Emmy and Albert), Emmy herself, a handful of Catullus poems, action potential, and the problem of Apollonius. I'm guessing that they found the Einstein list first, being re-directed from the high-traffic Albert Einstein article, and then decided to go on a little vandal-spree. It was also interesting that they went to the trouble of making two user accounts, User:PillowP (my favourite!) and User:DerMetzgerMeister9 (roughly, "The Master Butcher #9"), and of learning some wiki-markup. It's also funny that the vandalism put me in a much better mood than I was earlier in the week. :) Willow ( talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. "Toe-up" socks are ones that are knit beginning at the toe, which allows for a nifty invisible cast-on and for trying them on as you go. It's the sock analog of top-down sweaters — although you might not find that analogy very enlightening. ;) Socks are usually knit from the cuff down or from the toe up, although you can start pretty much anywhere if inspiration strikes. I prefer toe-up generally; sometimes to amuse myself, I'll reproduce a cuff-down sock as a toe-up sock. It's a little like brushing your teeth left-handed for fun. ;) Only slightly weird Willow ( talk) 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A glass of fire | ||
So that whatever you drink will always be inspiring, you will always be thirsty, and it will never run out. -- Moni3 ( talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
Don't ever be confused or wonder what your next article will be. Drink, and you will know.
Humorously, I got the idea for the Neurotic's Guide to Writing an FA from a topic on the the WP:FAC talk page (thank you, jbmurray). Step one is admitting you're brain is on fire and won't go out until you hammer and pound words out of your head. But even when that happens, coals lie quiet until the next bucket of fuel comes along. Sometimes when I sleep, I hear words from a script that make no sense repeated over and over: "You look like someone else", "Good night, sweet Betty", "You've come back!" I wake up with the sound of the wind whipping across sawgrass plains, feeling sunburned, exhausted, and raw.
Some coals burn deeper and longer than others, and aren't consumed completely. Those coals are patient. Keep those safe. You have two glasses so you can pass one along to someone else.
Thank you for your help and inspiration. -- Moni3 ( talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)