User talk:WillowW/Archive5

WillowW
talk page archives

---

Current talk page

---

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010
2011 · 2012 · 2013-14 · 2015-20

Hi from Honeybee :)

Hi, Willow! Forgive my belated reply to your kind note - it's taken me this long to figure out how to do it!  ;~) Let me know if I still haven't figured it out! lol

I'm really glad to be here to provide my over 35 years of knitting experience to others, esp. to the relatively new online knitting community. There is so much information I've gleaned from traditional books and magazines (from the last two "waves" of knitting popularity) that is lost to those who only google to find out how to do things; putting it here will bridge this (generation) gap, I hope.

I was "sent" here by Brenda Dayne of Cast-On (knitting podcast), who, in previous podcasts, encouraged knitters to input the vast wealth of knitting information to be found (both in books and magazines and online) so it could be accessed in one place.

Looking forward to reading more, discussing more, figuring out more, and adding more!

Honeybee33 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Honeybee, it's so nice to hear from you! :)

Your casting-on work is great — yeay! There's one thing, though, that we should think about doing. I've been lame about adding references to the knitting articles; I wrote most of my knitting articles early in my time here and didn't know how to do references, or even that they were necessary. I'd be happy to add the references now if you want to keep on adding the main material; or, if you're interested in how to do it and have particular books, etc. in mind, it's covered in the Help pages under "Citing sources". I use the <ref>...</ref> approach, where the "..." is usually a cite template like

{{cite book | last = Tanford | first = C | authorlink = Charles Tanford | coauthors = Reynolds J | year = 2001 | title = Nature's robots: A history of proteins | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford | pages = pp 100-200}}

which produces something like

Tanford, C (2001). Nature's robots: A history of proteins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. pp 100–200. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Your arrival is really timely, since we're thinking of bringing Knitting to Featured article (FA) status in January/February. FA status is the highest status that an article can reach at Wikipedia, a very worthy goal but also very demanding, because you have to cover the subject completely and provide references for everything. Luckily, the community of knitters here seems really nice and friendly, so we probably won't have many disagreements, which can sometimes make FA's difficult in other fields.

I'm not likely to write much over the next few days; I'm as sick as a dog and rarely crawl out of bed :P Have fun and please write again! 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Willow, thanks for the proper reference format! I started to add a few new references to my cast-on work, but assumed the references already there were correct and repeated the formating! I'll go back and change it so it's proper.

I found the discussion page where you're all talkin' about the FA thing - I'm excited to be a part of it! Consider me "on board." Honeybee33 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I can't wait — this is going to be fun. :) Willow 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Excellent work! :) The articles would also benefit from some nice public-domain pictures, don't you think? Unfortunately, I don't have a camera, and borrowing one is kind of, ummm, involved for me. Do you or Brenda have friends who are good at taking pictures — maybe you are? The public-domain thing is really important, though. It's best to upload pictures at the Commons, which you can get to from the Main Page (look near the bottom under "Wikipedia's sister projects"). Good luck! Breathlessly, Willow 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nature

I just reviewed this for GA and it's breadth and importance made me think immediately that you would enjoy editing it. TimVickers 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind suggestion; I'll do my best, once I have a moment's time. Willow 14:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

GA is one person's decision, in this case mine, based on if the reviewer thinks the article fits the GA criteria. The process is outlined here. I'd be glad to help out with the evolution/diversity of life/biology sections, this could be a great interdisciplinary article. Send me a link once you've got a draft going. TimVickers 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I started making notes here, but it's still way too preliminary. Also, I have to get ready for traveling, so I won't be able to work much more tonight. I do agree, this could be a wonderful interdisciplinary article and a lot of fun to write! :) Talk to you soon, Willow 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetics glossary in mainspace

I finally wrote some additional definitions (rather poorly, probably, trying to be very brief) for Template:Genetics glossary and added it to the gene article. What do you think? I'm a little apprehensive about the positioning, since putting it at the top requires the browser to reformat the whole page every time you expand/hide a box, but putting it at the bottom of the article isn't very useful. I almost want a floating div, but floating expandable boxes will probably make old browsers faceplant.

As for the content, do you think that's enough basic definitions? Anything obvious I missed that would be useful (or anything excessive in there)? I'll post this on User talk:Filll too, since he was the original impetus behind the idea - I imagine the need for the very stubby introduction to genetics is largely obviated? Opabinia regalis 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so lucky to have a friend like you — not least because you use words in such wonderful ways ("faceplant"! "obviate"!) :D

I really can't say what words should go into the glossary, since I don't have a purview of the gene articles, or indeed of genetics itself. I've only known a few geneticists and they never seem to want to talk shop with me, maybe because they think I wouldn't understand. :( I mainly know the field as a useful way of identifying proteins that are involved in some function and should be studied further.

There may yet be a purpose for the introduction to genetics article although, in its present form, its purpose has been — largely obviated. :) Do you know the metaphor of the lotus flowers in the pond? The Buddha taught that souls are like lotus flowers straining to reach the surface of their pond, which represents enlightenment. Some flowers are very close, others are halfway there, and still others are still nascent. I feel that we ought to try to reach all of those flowers, at least as a long-term goal. Speaking just for myself, Wikipedia seems to offer a big enough tent for articles of different levels — do you think so? Willow 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to fix the template problem on gene by putting it below the lead Figure, where it had lots of white space to grow into (across from the Table of Contents) and where it could be seen both from the lead and from the article below. ClockworkSoul has a complementary approach, too. 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there is room for articles of different levels here, but then I am a little bit biased. Sometimes these hand to hand fights over AfD can be horrendous. I had a bit of trouble with Hinduism and Creationism that was very touch and go for a day or two. They really were offended. And I fought very hard and I might be able to save Support for evolution, although possibly under another name. --Filll 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. "Obviate" is one of my favorite English words; it's rare to find one that isn't jargon with such a precise meaning. I'm not really up to a mass overhaul of the genetics articles, but I might take Filll's suggestion and simplify the leads so that the glossary links will actually be useful to the people that need them. As I mentioned on Filll's talk - the main reason I don't like introduction to genetics is that gene and genetics ought not to be very technical in the first place, so they should be the 'introduction' for the subject. While there's motivation to improve these articles, I think it should be channeled into the main ones - it'd look a little silly to have a nice fancy intro article and then have the 'main' articles be a mess.

Filll, I'll reply to your deletion questions on my talk. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweater design

I couldnt find the AfD page either. But if one appears, I will be glad to go to bat for you. I think they seem to be getting much nastier latelyylI had a page for John Tyler Bonner, AAAS fellow, NAS fellow, emeritus professor and Department chairman at Princeton, holder of 3 honorary PhDs besides his earned PhD which he got in about 2 years while he was an officer in the Army Air Corps, from Harvard. And the guy said, he isnt notable. So I removed the notice, and he went after me again, with nasty snide comments. What ? If that is not notable, what is?--Filll 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect anyone who has a myspace account is notable to many here. By the way NAS, is like, totally overated, like, I ne'er heard of it. What's it mean, like, Nuts And Stuff, ha, ha, like my joke, like? As for AAAS sounds too much like ASS to be serious LOL ROTFLMAO, :-) get it, get it. like seriously you need to get over yourself Filll,er up, OH MAN I am on a roll now.

But seriously, I removed the deletion tag, And I too will defend it if it goes to AfD, please let me know if that happens. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks and thanks; you two are the best. Also replied on Talk:Sweater design. Willow 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector figures

Do you still have the source files you used to create the figures (for "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector") using xfig? Have you sent them to Jitse Niesen? He said he thought he could produce SVG figures if you did so, a nice boost for the article. (I'll watch here if you want to reply; otherwise, just talk to Jitse.) --KSmrq^T 08:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Miscellany

Looks like sweater design will survive its afd; that's good news. From his comments on the talk page, the nominator didn't seem like he quite grokked the deletion process anyway.

I added a bit on 'immunoinformatics' (god what a terrible name) to immune system; feel free to reorganize if it fits better elsewhere. A quick search didn't come up with anything obvious on the 500Da cutoff, but I admit I didn't look overly hard either :) Of course the conventional wisdom is that if you propose a drug that's made of protein and isn't an antibody, you'd better have a Damn Good Reason. Were you guys still looking for age-dependence effects? Sorry I didn't get around to that earlier; I really should know by now not to post timeframes like 'tomorrow' and 'next week'.

I thought you might like to know that I now own these. Opabinia regalis 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How awesome! :) I've always wanted one of these as well; all of Nature is beautiful, of course, but a purple trypanosome with eyelashes is well-nigh proof of a beneficient creatrix. ;)

(Deep breath) I can't thank you enough for your support on the Sweater design AfD. I hate being mastered by my feelings, but it upset me; I had a horrible premonition of all my knitting articles being destroyed as "instructional". I suppose that they would deserve annihilation if they weren't proper for WP, but I still believe that they have a place here. Your ideas on the Talk page were really good; I'll do my best to improve the article's tone and research the new topics.

Your immunoinformatics additions seem excellent. The 500 Dalton cutoff was taken from a conversation I had with a medicinal chemist from a pharmaceutical company that I met skiing a few years ago; he seemed so knowledgable and earnest (and cute, oops ;) that I thought he must know what he was talking about. The cutoff made sense, but then again, taxol is over 800 Da. Hmm, I'll try to look into it.

I personally feel like the Immune system should have more about its age dependence, since many lay-people will care about it and, umm, I'm totally curious. ;) I suspect that the declining-hormones argument isn't the whole story. I'm not really a major contributor to the article, though, so I'm not the one to ask; I just throw stuff in now and then, beg for references and hope that people like it. Don't worry about the time frame; we're building an encyclopedia on the century time-scale so we can be gentle with ourselves, no? Even should we fall down, other Problematica and Salicaceae will rise up; the very stones will shout for joy. :) Willow 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a soft-toy trypanosome, as well as their influenza and ebola virons. They're adorable. Congratulations on your vector article passing FA Willow. It was far above my head, but I read it with interest if not enlightenment. Well done! TimVickers 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave a few people giant microbes as stocking-stuffers a couple of years ago. I figured it was an appropriately dorky thing to do :) Will look a bit more thoroughly for size dependence of immunogenicity (notice how I didn't put a timeframe in there?) because I'm sure it is roughly larger molecule = more antigenic, I just don't know the specifics. I imagine there's also functional group correlations. And also -- vv ditto to Tim below. Great job on the LRL vectors; getting such an article to FA status is great work! Opabinia regalis 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Even the problem children of Nature — the problematica? — are beautiful and deserve the love they'll get. The LRLv just needed a little more attention than most so that the right people could appreciate her charms. 3) Maybe she should switch from pumps to flats, though? :p

Thank you both, for you know what and you know why Willow 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Laplace–Runge–Lenz

Wow you made FA. I knew you would. Beautiful job. I still owe you some comments however.--Filll 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutation

Don't you think that article could stand a bit of polishing? For the average dufus I mean...it is a bit dense....--Filll 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Thank you for the compliments, they're never overdue :)! Honestly, I didn't do all that much on immune system, you know. I'm just glad my edits could be helpful. Fvasconcellos 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And some more thanks....for being someone who looks for the good in everyone! It was nice to read your warm message Willow, I apprecitate it! In reply tho', I'm not sure I would call myself "cool" but I guess we can all dream ;-) Well done yourself for helping get the immune system and countless other pages up to scratch!! Ciar 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very kind words, Willow, and congrats yourself on the FA of your Vector article (which I must admit was way over my head). Yes, I too am sure the article will help people (cough>plagiarize>cough) for a long time to come, plus and probably even more important, I really enjoyed working on it. Thanks for all that you did to help make the article special, I look forward to working with you again sometime.--DO11.10 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Don't understand why you have put the "The sale of the Britannica to Americans" quote between the 9th & 10th editions, when the quote appears to refer to a much more contemporary criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sorry, that was because the sale occurred in 1901, between those editions. The quote was intended to show the lingering resentment. Hoping that that seems sensible, Willow 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm up to speed now. The reference after "American concerns are emphasized" didn;t seem to be working. Looks like a type; fixed. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Your kind words

Willow,

All I can say is "wow". Thank you so much for thinking of me... it's exactly what I need right now, and you - and those like you - have been profoundly helpful and supportive. You're very right about peace and forgiveness, and I've never been one to hold a grudge, so in that spirit I accepted her apology without reservation. That being said, however, we still have a bumpy road ahead of us, but at least now we're on it together. In the most genuine possible way, thank you. – ClockworkSoul 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DSSP

Hello again Willow. I just ran across your new creation DSSP (protein) and thought I'd do a little reference patrolling. I looked for the ref you cited (Kabsch and Sander 1981), but all I could find was this:

Kabsch W, Sander C (1983). "Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features". Biopolymers. 22 (12): 2577–637. doi:10.1002/bip.360221211. PMID 6667333.

It sounded right, too, and several sources cite it. The years don't match, though—do I have the wrong ref? I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify this for me. If I did introduce the wrong one, sorry! Thanks, Fvasconcellos 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're great, Fv! Thanks so much :)

Not only did you get the right reference, but you also fixed the dab page — way to go! I'd thank you more, but I have to get back to cooking. It's great that I was trying to help O. regalis and you're helping me; it's Wikipedia at its best! :D Willow 02:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. I'm glad I got it right! Fvasconcellos 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My red links are turning blue!

Hey, you're doing a number on my redlinks list, thanks! Will expand Lifson-Roig model a bit next week; I have a pile of papers about variations on the theme but none home with me. I can't believe we didn't have an article on DSSP till today either. Whoever says we have all the articles we need is obviously not looking in the biochemistry section. Opabinia regalis 02:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - do you have a reference for the ser/thr vs tyr kinase thing in kinome? I would've put that distinction in the category of 'stuff I thought was generally true but never really looked into', but I'm not up on kinase stuff really. Opabinia regalis 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Physics: upgrades of definitions

Hi Willow,

I am curious whether you will agree with the following discussion. It is related to an edit you made quite a while ago to the fictitious force article.

There are several ways of defining the concept of force. In the context of newtonian physics the following definition suffices: "That which causes an object to deviate from inertial motion is a force." In turn, in newtonian context it suffices to define: "inertial motion is motion in a straight line". Hence in the context of newtonian physics it suffices to assert that gravitation is a force on the grounds that it is gravitation that causes the planets to move in orbits.

In the context of the general theory of relativity, those definitions are not applicable, partly because a geometric notion (straight line) plays a part in the definition. New, upgraded, backwards compatible definitions are required.

The modern definition of force relates the concept of force to the concept of energy:
A force is an interaction between two particles (either repulsive or attractive). When the interaction is doing work (or doing negative work), potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (or vice versa).

A definition of the above type applies both in the context of newtonian physics and the context of relativistic physics. This definition slots in with the recognition of four fundamental interactions of Nature: gravitational interaction, electromagnetic interaction, strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction.

Some authors on the subject of relativistic physics make the following peculiar move: they keep using the definition of force that applies only in the context of newtonian physics. According to the general theory of relativity the planets orbiting the Sun are inertial motion, the frame of reference that is co-moving with, say, mercury's center of mass is recognized as an inertial frame of reference. Hence, some authors claim: gravitation is not a force.

My point is that such a move is an incoherent way of presenting physics: the statement: "gravitation should not be categorized as a force" is an artifact of applying the newtonian-native definition of force in the context of relativistic physics.

I am aware that there is more to the story than this. If you feel that in order to assess what I wrote you need to know more about my perspective, you can read the Introduction to the general theory of relativity that is on my own website. That may help to save time. --Cleonis | Talk 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleonis, I wish that I could do justice to your question, but I need to think about it deeply before I can answer sensibly. Certainly, it seems from general relativity and quantum field theory that energy and action are more "real" than forces are. The stress-energy tensor T_μν seems to be responsible for bending space-time, for example, and an action expression is all that's needed for a well-defined quantum field theory. However, if I recall correctly, there was a paper in the 1940's by Einstein and Hoffmann and maybe one other physicist, showing that the law of geodesic motion in general relativity results from the requirement that the curvature tensor have no discontinuity. Thus, all of gravitation — as modeled in general relativity — results from Einstein's tensor equation for the geometry of space-time. Insofar as that equation describes the geometry of empty space and not objects in that space such as particles, it seems fair to say that GR gravity is different in kind from other interactions ("forces") such as electromagnetism, which involve particles. My own sense is that there's something deeper going on; but that would be original research.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, it may boil down to a question of semantics. Personally, I would now argue that GR says that there is no gravitational force; the impressed motion of "gravity" on a particle is merely space-time doing what comes naturally, following Einstein's field equation. We should not assume a Euclidean prejudice, i.e., conceptually embed curved space-time in a higher dimensional Euclidean space, and then claim that the quasi-constraint "forces" holding particles in bent space-time are equivalent to real forces.

However, I may well regret saying this, once I've thought about the question more ;) Willow 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you are aware of the Hilbert formulation of GR which results in the same field equations from a minimization principle. I do not think anyone really knows what it means. GR is the odd man out in the forces because it does not fit in the quantum framework so easily as the other 3. And who knows if current TOE formulations will stand the test of time. --Filll 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think that for the purposes of wikipedia it boils down to semantics.

In the end, the concept of a 'field' is a metaphor. We don't know whether what we call 'the electromagnetic field' really exists, and we don't need to know. What we need to know are the physical properties of the interaction. The physical properties of the interaction can be formulated in terms of a field theory. The properties of the electromagnetic interaction can be formulated in terms of a field theory or in terms of exchange of what are referred to as virtual photons. In either formulation, there is a mediator of the interaction. If we formulate electromagnetic interaction in terms of mediation by an electromagnetic field, then it must be granted that this electromagnetic field can carry momentum, and that it has inertial mass. If we formulate electromagnetic interaction in terms of exchange of virtual photons (an action-at-a-distance-theory) then likewise this mediator is thought of as carrying momentum an having inertial mass. Thus in both views there is no violation of conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.

A coherent way of presenting physics, in my opinion is to focus on what the different formulations have in common. The common theme is that interactions have a mediator. When two electrostatically charged particles are free to move under the influence of the electrostatic attraction, they will fly towards each other, and when they collide kinetic energy is released.

In the case of gravitation, the mediator of the interaction is fundamentally different from the other known mediators. According to GR, inertial mass induces curvature of spacetime, and this non-flat morphology of spacetime affects the motion of objects in spacetime. That is, according to GR, curvature of spacetime acts as the mediator of gravitational interaction. When two lumps of inertial mass are free to move under the influence of the curved spacetime they are in, they will fly towards each othere, and when they collide kinetic energy is released.

Generally, I think it is not particularly helpful to dwell on questions of what exists or what doesn't. What is interesting to me is what is interconnnected. The concept of force and the concept of energy are interconnected. It is possible to formulate physics entirely in terms of energy conversions. Whether to use a representation in terms of forces that are acting or a representation in terms of distribution of potential energy is a matter of convenience, not a matter of principle.

So, to get back to my original point, I do understand what considerations lead to the statement "according to GR gravitation is a fictitious force". But that statement can be appreciated only by somenone who is very familiar with GR. To a novice, the statement "according to GR gravitation is a fictitious force" looks like a bombshell. I am very much in favor of asserting that gravitation is a force, with optionally the caveat that that the way that gravitation is mediated is unlike any other interaction we know. --Cleonis | Talk 12:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In one view, photon exchanges mediates the EM force, the graviton mediates the gravitational force, pi particle (or gluon) exchange mediate the strong force and W and Z0 exchange mediates the weak force. In one view the electron is a particle in another it is a wave. These are all imperfect models of how the universe is. However, if they have predictive power, then they are valuable.--Filll 13:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Metaphors in physics

I'd like to explain what metaphor has strongly influenced me. John Wheeler empasizes that where newtonian theory of gravitation is an action-at-a-distance-theory, the general theory of relativity is a contact-theory of gravitation. John Wheeler presents the following picture: in terms of field theory, we have that each particle affects the infinitisimal volume of spacetime right adjacent to it. In turn, each infinitisimal volume of spacetime that is itself curved affects the spacetime adjacent to it. Curvature of spacetime extends away from mass because of this contact-transfer. Thus, curvature of spacetime can be seen as the mediator of gravitational interaction.

I think I should ask here to grant me the following principle:
Any representation that disregards some of the available information is inferior to a representation that includes all of the available relevant information.
For short, I call this the "Zoom out" principle. If you want a picture to be helpful, you need to zoom out, and capture the entire scene.

In the case of two lumps of mass, free-floating in spacetime, one can obtain two distinct 'zoomed in' pictures, each showing only one lump of mass, free-floating in spacetime. The zoomed out picture contains both lumps of mass, and (implicitly) the overall spacetime curvature that is induced by the two lumps of mass. The zoomed out picture shows that the two lumps of mass and spacetime as an assembly are in a process of physical interaction: gravitational interaction. --Cleonis | Talk 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of Euclidean prejudice

I copy and paste from above:

We should not assume a Euclidean prejudice, i.e., conceptually embed curved space-time in a higher dimensional Euclidean space, and then claim that the quasi-constraint "forces" holding particles in bent space-time are equivalent to real forces. Willow 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My assessment is that the considerations that I have offered are independent from the question of Euclidean prejudice. At present, it is not known whether in the future there will be a successful quantum theory of gravitation (as noted by Filll, in such a theory gravitational interaction is mediated by exchange of virtual gravitons). That type of quantum theory of gravitation will have Minkowski spacetime as the assumed background, just as today's quantum theory has Minkowski spacetime as the background structure in which physics is taking place. Since we don't know what the future will bring, we need to be uncommitted about this. I will argue against the validity of any reasoning that depends on for example the euclidean prejudice. --Cleonis | Talk 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside: I feel that in my enthousiams I am flooding your Talk page. I shall try hard to get a grip on myself. --Cleonis | Talk 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Final word?

I don't have much to add to what I said above, but permit me to disagree with you respectfully, for the reasons stated above. I hope we agree that empty space-time is different from material particles; to say otherwise would be original research. All of GR — including the geodesic law of motion, the successor to Newton's First Law — is a consequence of Einstein's field equation for space-time, and the requirement of continuity of curvature. Those laws pertain more properly to space-time than to matter, right? According to GR, space-time would still have dynamics even if no matter were present; for example, the rushing apart of galaxies thanks to the expansion of space has little to do with the material composition of those galaxies. Thus, I would say that there is no "force" pushing those galaxies apart; merely the space between them is growing, due to the laws peculiar to space-time itself. If you agree with this, then we agree that the gravitational attraction between masses is "fictitious", since it arises from exactly the same law as the expansion of space. I understand your concerns about the difficulty of explaining it to others; but I would encourage you to hold out hope even for the most benighted of us and to work harder at explaining it eloquently. I'm sorry that I can't help you more now, but I'll check in on your efforts in a few months. Good luck and kind wishes, Willow 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow, I'll check back in a couple of months or so. For now, some more words.

I think I prefer to keep the question open as to what extend spacetime and material particles are distinct. It is my understanding that curved spacetime (stressed spacetime) contributes to the stress-energy tensor, that is: curved spacetime has inertial mass. Assemblies of masses orbiting each other will be emitters of gravitational waves. In emitting gravitational waves, the energy content of the orbiting system decreases. We have that spacetime and material particles have properties in common. I don't think we need to make a specific assumption as to what extend spacetime and material particles are distinct, I think it's best to be uncommitted about that.

My point of view is that the field equations of GR pertain to the way that spacetime and matter interconnect. I like the metaphor that John Wheeler introduced: "Inertial mass is telling spacetime how to curve, curved spacetime is telling inertial mass how to move."
The extend to which spacetime and material particles are distinct is inconsequential for this point of view; whatever is the case my assessment is that describing how spacetime and inertial mass interconnect is the essence of the GR equations.

Suppose we take a universe with enough inertial mass to halt the cosmic expansion, and enter a phase of cosmic contraction, all the way to a Big Crunch. It is my understanding that spacetime doesn't spontaneously assume positive curvature, it takes some doing - presence of inertial mass is required. I think it is natural to use the following metaphor: the causative power to get to the state of positive curvature of spacetime is in the presence of the inertial mass. In that sense, a sense of causative power, or transmission of causative power, I think it is natural to speak of curvature of spacetime as a force-field. Along those lines I think it is natural to expand the category of 'force' to also cover gravitational interaction.

From observations of very distant supernovas it has been deduced that some 5 billion years ago the cosmic expansion of our universe stopped decelerating and started accelerating. It is conjectured that this acceleration can be attributed to the presence in spacetime of something that is referred to as 'dark energy', with a property that is referred to as 'negative pressure'. If this conjecture holds up, then I'm in favor of expanding the concept of 'gravitation' to also cover the expansion-accelerating action of this 'dark energy'. Along those lines I would be in favor of referring to the expansion-accelerating action as a repulsive force.

The above said, I have doubts as to whether it is helpful to discuss GR cosmology. It's awkward to try and make a comparison between GR cosmology and GR applied to phenomena on planetary scale.

* The redshift of the cosmic background radiation cannot be understood in terms of velocity-related relativistic redshift, it's another kind of redshift, specific to cosmic expansion.

* The observation of increasing distances between the (clusters of) galaxies is to be understood in terms of expansion of the volume of intergalactic space. But in the case of, say, a system with a double star and a planet, the system is unstable, and sooner or later the planet will be catapulted out of the system. GR does not describe that process in terms of expansion of the in-between space.

Moving away from cosmology: the Schwarzschild metric suggests that the natural state of spacetime is geometric flatness. In the Schwarzschild metric we have: the further away from inertial, mass the closer the spacetime metric is to Minkowski spacetime. Inertial mass is presented as the cause of curvature of spacetime. Curvature of spacetime acts as the mediator of gravitational interaction. --Cleonis | Talk 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Doing something useful?

Thanks for your clarifications on Zimm-Bragg and Lifson-Roig (hm, apologies for getting too lazy to write out the alpha/310 matrix....there's always tomorrow). But I must insist that you leave the mainspace alone till your satire is finished; it's a most excellent piece of work that had me giggling like a Tickle Me Elmo. I can only hope that one of our male compatriots takes up the challenge to write a counterpoint. Opabinia regalis 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that I should disobey an admin. ;) Especially one who's so nice to me. :D

I'm so happy that you like it. In satire, there's a gentle gradient from salutary acupuncture to light skewering to wholesale impalement, and I was worried about being too close to the latter end of the spectrum. Still, an edgy satire can't help but be cutting and we shouldn't let them off too easily; I'm sure that they'll give as good as they get, I pray with as fine a wit. Perhaps we might have a matching pair of articles for April 1st?

I might have to do some work in the mainspace, though, before it's done. Writing a good satire is like Loki's evil cup; the words have to drip-drip-drip into the brain, which takes patience and a dedicated delight in wickedness. ;) I also need to track down all the references; the idea for the Main Page is to render true facts in unbelievable ways. Feel free to add whatever you like, Willow 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...In which case, you're welcome back into the mainspace; I wouldn't dream of disrupting the creative process, or decreasing the general level of wickedness. Hm, would I be betraying my origins to say 'That satire page was wicked funny'?

Now, how am I so out of the loop that I missed the existence of an April Fool's main page? Getting prepared early, I see. I do hope this page gets its mate between now and then; perhaps Valentine's Day will serve as a suitable inspiration. Opabinia regalis 07:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's strange, but the announcement was only on the Community Portal for a short while, I'm not sure why. Maybe it was a joke on me? Anyway, I'll probably lay the essay to rest for a while, since I need time to recharge my stereotypes and re-sharpen my skewers; you probably noticed how, the longer I worked on it, the softer and more forgiving it got. The essay should have an impish but not ungenerous tone, just enough sting to make its targets wince (despite their thick skins), but not so much that they can't laugh at themselves. If you think of something that's been overlooked, please let me know; it should be encyclopedic. ;) Maybe dinner-dates?

In the meantime, I found a treasure trove of EB sources at a university library; I can't take them out, but I can at least take notes on the good parts. :) Stay tuned, Willow 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Announcement seems to be back now - in fact, it's the only one. I guess I'm just oblivious. I doubt I'll be of much help in thinking of any missing pieces; after all, I am single and home at my computer on a Friday night :)

I'm so glad that you are! :) We're like peas in pod, except that I'm about to go to bed, whereas you'll stay up and write something cool. :)

Re:missing pieces, it's hard for me, too, but I have this really misbehaved male cat that gives me inspiration... That, and I have a talkative circle of friends. A good vivisection always requires a team of pathologists. ;)

I really like the new history of EB article, by the way. Any reason not to leave Thomas Spencer Bayes as a redirect, on the off chance someone searches directly for the name? Seems like a likely typo. Opabinia regalis 03:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was too slow to save it — sorry! I didn't think of that beforehand, and I was kind of mortified about my spelling error, so I just wanted the page to disappear. You're right, it does seem like a plausible typo, since (ahem) I made it (blush), so maybe we should regenerate the page? I feel sorry for the admin who took the trouble to reply so quickly. Ta, etc. Willow 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice words from Filll

Wow. I looked a bit at some of the other articles you have written and/or worked on or contributed to. You have to be a physicist. Runge-Lenz was not an exception in any way at all. Makes me feel somewhat sheepish that I have not put my skills and background to work in a similar way. Where is your satire? I have been smirking about a slightly comical article I have in a sandbox about Bees and inebration. It is a bit strange since I am a lifelong teetotaller, but I still was amused.--Filll 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind compliments, Filll! :) But you are mistaken; I am not a physicist, no more than I am a biochemist, or a musician, or a librarian. I am just really curious and have a long acoustic memory for conversations with people I like. Many different people come into our little yarn store to knit and look over yarns; as they do so, they're wonderfully relaxed and happy and will indulge my curiosity on nearly any subject while they're hanging out. More generally, I have a wide circle of friends whom I love dearly and who love to talk shop; over the years, I've collected quite a few random topics in my mental attic, beautiful antique topics that no one seems to care about any more. I feel this silly impulse to show these antique gems to people and say, "Do you see how beautiful the world is?" I should be more practical, I know; I fault myself for not being more like Opabinia and Tim, for writing about weird old-fashioned topics rather than more important topics of general interest. But everyone contributes as they can; in my own way, I'm as driven as the snow. It also helps that I'm patient with myself (as you should be!), not afraid of math and have a good local library. Willow 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Please do not look for that satire; it reflects poorly on me. :( I'll look for yours, though. :)

For a nonphysicist/nonmathematician you are pretty impressive. Did you never consider going into those areas professionally? You do not have a background in them? I create this stuff myself irl (I have been afraid to look at topics about my own work or to even find, horror of horrors, that I have an article on here about ME; I would rather not know). Here I am, a mathematical physicist writing biology articles on WP (although I never took a biology course in my life) and articles about geography and latose intolerance and all kinds of things I have no background in (well it is an excuse to learn I guess). And there you are, a knitting expert writing articles on mathematical physics??? Wow. Makes my head spin.--Filll 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The world is a beautiful and mysterious place, isn't it? I have no hope of ever understanding it, but even its oddness seems filled with strange magic and noble purpose. Promise me that you'll be patient with yourself; for all of us, our better selves are struggling to be born. Willow 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No comments on my bees and inebriation? That bad?--Filll 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, can I ask you to be patient with me as well as yourself? I'm kind of preoccupied, which makes it hard to give well-considered criticisms that would be useful to an author. Besides, you should not assume the worst about your own creations — although Heaven knows I do likewise! ;) Willow 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry.--Filll 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concern

Thanks, but this isn't really a major problem. I think I know what the problem was and VamooseScram shouldn't be a difficulty. TimVickers 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so happy to hear it; your elegant solution seems — well-crafted. :) Bravo and good luck, Willow 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to finish?

Would you like to finish the article on knitted fabrics? If not, please tag it for deletion, as it has no current use. Thanks, Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lipid Template question

Willow
Thanks for making the Lipid template. I'm currently trying to get Eicosanoid up to GA level; I'm adding your template (currently in sandbox at User:David.Throop/Eicosanoid). Can I offer some suggestions?

• Should Triglyceride be in the General row, along with Saturated fat | Unsaturated fat | Monounsaturated fat | Polyunsaturated fat?
• Does Arachidonic acid really belong in the Eicosanoid row? It's one of three sources for eicosanoids (along with Eicosapentaenoic acid and DGLA), but they aren't really eicosanoids til they've been oxidized.
• You've got a row of 'Fatty acids' with five entries (all saturated.) But there are a whole lot more coming – Polyunsaturated fatty acid and List of saturated fatty acids. (There isn't a List of monounsaturated fatty acids yet, hmmm...)
• Does Essential fatty acid fit in here somewhere? Conjugated linoleic acids? Interesterified fat?
• You've got the 'classical' eicosanoids right. But several other classes are technically eicosanoid - that is, they're derived from essential fatty acids. These are the hepoxilins, resolvins, isofurans, isoprostanes, lipoxins, epoxyeicosatrienoic acids (EETs) and some endocannabinoids. Where should they go?

Regards, David.Throop 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David!

Thanks for your really nice note. :) It's wonderful that you're taking on the eicosanoids! They seem really important but I don't know much about them at all — as in, I once saw a poster that summarized their structures and met a talkative researcher at a party. So you should go ahead and mutate those templates however you think would be best, or even add new ones if the others get too unwieldy. BTW, the same is true for other secondary metabolites like the flavonoids and the terpenoids. I have a vague understanding of them — and even vaguer ambitions of charming someone into explaining them to me ;) or, failing that, actually reading something — but WYSIWYG from me at the moment. Have fun fixing them up; I look forward to learning from you! :) Many thanks from a Nature addict, Willow 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to wikisource

Hi Willow,

I added a translation into english of an article by Einstein to wikisource.
Dialog about objections to the theory of relativity (1918)
If you like I can send you a transscript of the original german version, or the facsimile PDF-version.

If it's okay with you, I'd like to contribute to translating the photo-electric effect paper. --Cleonis | Talk 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleonis, sieht gut aus! Das muss ich mal genauer anschauen wenn ich mal Zeit habe. Ich würde mir auch freuen, wenn Sie mir das Original schicken würden, spasseshalber. Der alte Einstein, der konnte schon gut schreiben, ge?

Ich hoffe, Sie haben nichts dagegen, aber ich hätte es lieber, wenn Sie mir erlauben würden, meine Übersetzung vollständig einzutippen, eh' Sie anfangen, daran zu korrigieren. Mir ist es peinlich dass es so lange gedauert hat and dass mein Deutsch so — unvollkommen ist, aber ich möchte echt diesen Artikel ganz alleine vollfertigen. Seien Sie mir doch so gut und gönnen Sie mir das, bitte, bitte :) Vielen herzlichen Dank, Deine Willow 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ich kan nicht beurteilen ob Einstein gut schreiben könnte. Seine Satzen sind oft sehr lang und compliziert.

Ich erinnere mich an etwas daß Stanislaw Ulam erzähte in seine autobiografie (geschrieben in Englisch). Ulam erzählte über die sprachen die er gelernt hatte, und vergleichte die Sprachen die er sehr gut beherrschte. Aufgewachsen als Jude in Poland war seine Muttersprache Jiddisch, und in die Schule hatte er Polisch und Deutsch gelernt (als Deutch damals verplichtet war), und später, im Gymnasium, Lateinisch und Griechisch. Er heiratete eine Französische, und lernte Französich, und als er nach die Vereinigde Staten emigriert war hat er Englisch gelernt.

Ulam erzahlte: "When ich Uber Physikalische Fragen denke in die deutsche Sprache, verliere ich mich sehr oft in überflüßich complizierte constructionen. Wen ich in Französisch denke darentgegen, scheint alles mir klar wie Kristall."

Es scheint die Deutche sprache eigen zu sein, ziemlich complizierte constructionen auf zu bauen. Das macht die Aufgabe für der Überzetser schwerer.

Viel Erfolg bei ihre Arbeit an das Artikel über den photo-electrischen Effect. Möglicherweise ist die folgende web-seite hilfreich um die physikalischen Hintergrund besser zu verstehen. Atoms Entropy Quanta Einstein's Statistical Physics of 1905. John Norton beschreibt daß Einstein ein Meister war in die anwendung von statistischen Mechanik. Beim analyse des Schwarzkörper Strahlungs war er sein zeitgenossen weit voraus im anwendung von statistischen Mechanik.

Oh, zur Seite: meine Muttersprache is Holländisch, ich bin ein Niederländer :-) --Cleonis | Talk 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands is a beautiful country and everyone I've met from there (so far!) seems smart and supernaturally cool; properties it shares with Ireland and Scotland. Congrats on a great homeland!

I got the reprint of the original Einstein dialog — thanks muchly! I look forward to burying myself in it; he's such an awesome writer. :) Talk to you soon, Willow 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

minimin

Thanks for getting that on aiv - i seemed to have endless edit conflicts and couldnt get it on - the attention seeking is unbelievable - thanks for your report...SatuSuro 13:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Someone seems to think that the lists recently written for the 1974 and 2007 Britannicas are forms of copyright infringement. Do you know what to do about this? I'm not sure how to respond. Geuiwogbil 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the 2007 list that Tables of Contents are traditionally allowed to be reproduced without fear of copyvio, at least that's my understanding. However, it's possible that I misunderstood that or that the legal status of such lists has changed recently. Let's both look around and see what we can dig up on the issue. I really want to keep the lists on the up&up while trying to be as thorough and informative as possible, as I'm sure that you do, too. By the way, does your 1974 version say who wrote the uncredited Micropædia articles? The EB editors seem far and away most likely, but Bramlet Abercrombie would like a reference stating that. Thanks! Willow 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much responding to Quuxplusone! I was scared half out of my wits by his comment, thinking I'd have to delete the lists. Thanks especially for the citation. (Did you just find that now, were you keeping it around in case something like this happened, or do you just have as extensive a knowledge of copyright issues as you do of every other subject known to humankind?) Really, just thanks, you've made me very happy.

The Propædia for my edition has a "Authorities for the Micropædia" section in the back, breaking down contributors by Propædia sections. It runs to 31 pages, and begins with the caption "Material in these volumes was written by, or is based on material submitted by the following authorities". They don't seem to be entirely undistinguished fellows: Roger Adams, Professor of Organic Chemistry, University of Illinois; Howell Williams, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University of California, Berkeley; but I don't recognize any of their names. Professors abound, though I'm not sure how much that means. Does your Propædia also list Micropædia authorities?

Also, following the initial dedication page is another type of dedication: "It is appropriate that this 15th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica be regarded as a memorial to its Publisher, William Benton (1900-1973). Though he would have rejected the Britannica as the vision or the work of one man, it is a fact that his faith and inspiration were necessary to its conception, and his dedicated determination and guidance were necessaryto its completion." Would this be relevant for the History of dedications section?

Thanks again. :) Geuiwogbil 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your really nice note, which also made me very happy, too. I knew about that TOC thing before, but I found that PDF just now (Google rocks! ;) I'm sitting in my local library and just checked their 2002 Propædia, which has 68 pages of Micropædia contributors. Some of them are credited, since they have identified initials, e.g., "J.Gl." for James Gleick. But others do not have initials, so I guess those are the mysterious unsigned contributors to the Micropædia. It's strange that they don't want credit for their work, though; perhaps they just sent in some raw text which the editors had to massage into an article. Maybenext week I'll amuse myself by photocopying all 68 pages and striking out the identified ones to arrive at the Great Unnamed. They deserve their moment of glory, too, don't you think? I'm reminded of one of my favorite books

“ ...for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs. ” — George Eliot, in the conclusion to Middlemarch

Of course, the same could be said for Wikipedians. ;) Willow 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One favor to ask, if I may! I have to run off to work, but the Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. article could use some serious sprucing up. I found a good source on answers.com, the Encyclopaedia of Comapny Histories. It's not perfect on the history of the Britannica itself, but seems really good on the company's history: its various name changes, incorporations, splits and divisions, etc. If I recall correctly, Jacqui Safra also has a holding company for all of the various Britannica-related companies. Anyway, if you had time to absorb all that and improve the EB and EB Inc. articles, that'd be great! :) If not, don't worry, I'll get to it sometime soon. Thanks muchly and talk to you soon, Willow 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Your dedication seems great to include, especially if one mentioned that Benton led the EB for thirty years, which might be longer than anyone — we should check the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article! :)

Talk

Talk:Wikipedia#New sections. Thanks – Qxz 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it looks like I'm attacking your stuff. I think it's great, really. But having spent four days attacking the rest of the article, I want it to fit in! There are some bias problems at the moment — remember that we are Wikipedia, and writing about how great we are, or even stating an opinion without citation is a conflict of interest; we should stick to solid, verifiable facts, or opinions of independent sources that can be referenced. This isn't too difficult; if something is explained on a policy or process page, then we can reference that page to verify the existence of the policy/process and what it does – Featured Articles, for example. Just make sure that any links to project pages are external links, not internal; else it causes problems (with redistribution of Wikipedia's articles and their use in different formats, with mirrors, and with various other things). So we can explain what processes are and how they work without issue, but when it comes to saying how effective Wikipedia is at this or that, we need to try to keep a neutral tone. Remember that this is one of our most-viewed articles, and it should be demonstrating just how well the very processes we are describing can work in practise. (And of course, if we can get it to FA status, that would be nice too!) Again, great work – Qxz 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Qxz, thanks for all your help and insights on the Wikipedia article! It really helps to have someone more experienced look over my work, especially since I tend to get, umm, enthusiastic. It's great how Wikipedians can help each other out and produce together something better than any one could produce on their own. :) I've been working on bringing the EB articles to FA status, too, and would appreciate your insights there if you had any time. They're not quite ready for Peer Review, so I don't want to waste your time, but if you could cast a quick glance over them, that'd be awesome. :) It'd be fun if we could bring Wikipedia and the EB to FAC together, don't you think? Something to dream of, Willow 17:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose my experience shows... I'm guessing you didn't check the age of my account before replying. :) Anyway, you're right about the benefits of collaborative editing — that is what we're here for, after all. See how much the article has changed in less than 24 hours! Though that's partly because I prepared my changes elsewhere first, and then copied them over in the space of a few minutes. I'm sure I can find time to look through the EB article at some point, and yes, making that a Featured Article would certainly be nice. On the other hand, you have a userbox stating "This user would rather meditate affectionately about her friends than make Encyclopædia Britannica into a Featured Article.", and I've never written a Featured Article before. In fact I've never so much as written a stub before. But I'm sure we can work something out, though; and I have to say, this is much more fun than maintenance work.

In case you haven't noticed I started a peer review for Wikipedia just before you started your changes. Sorry for panicking a bit and reverting everything, but having just asked for a review of the current version I was a bit surprised to suddenly see so many edits. Also, it looks like in a little over two days' time Wikipedia will be the Article Creation and Improvement Drive's Collaboration of the Week, which is excellent timing as it means there will be many more people to review our changes. And possibly many more people trying to claim credit for bringing the article up to FA status, but I guess that's the nature of collaboration. :) – Qxz 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I like the Middlemarch quote. Seems appropriate – Qxz 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

looking for a moderator and/or contributors

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? --Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

She's probably busy and she may feel that it lies outside her expertise, but the five eyes of Opabinia regalis are irreplaceable. If you can convince him, likewise, TimVickers has a wonderful way with words and is really smart; he would be perfect as a test non-physicist audience. I could help out a little, too, but only next week at the earliest. Good luck with the good fight! :) Willow 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured you might know someone. We need someone who can be neutral, so a nonphysicist is even better.--Filll 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the kind words. I'm in California at a conference at the moment, so I won't be able to help wih anything until the week after next. TimVickers 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, it's so nice to hear from you; thanks for the message! I hope the conference goes well for you; the mild California weather must be nice after your more usual home. :) Willow 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Erk, edit warring!

Looks like I missed something while I was out. I appreciate your efforts, though; see my comments on Talk:Wikipedia – Qxz 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting worn out, emotionally and physically; can you track down the refs for the "despite its shortcomings..." stuff? Thanks! Willow 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits are so much better written, it is not even funny. Beautifully written, in my opinion.--Filll 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true; sadly, though, beautiful is not the same as verifiable, and the latter is policy, whereas the former is not – Qxz 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi again. Per your request, I looked through Encyclopædia Britannica; overall I think it's quite impressive. One fairly significant thing I noticed, though, is Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which I'm not sure should exist at all. A response to my comments at Talk:Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica would be appreciated. Thanks – Qxz 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

At least in my opinion, although the names are not so important, what is interesting is some description of the size of the effort. This is particularly relevant since Encyclopedia Britannica is held up as the Gold Standard of Encyclopediae, and something that many people compare WP to.--Filll 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Username

(Moving this here since it's not really on-topic on an article talk page)

P.S. Your name is really interesting; is there a story behind it? I toyed with the idea of calling myself "Qtπ" — but it seemed insufferably cute, especially in this more sober environment. I'm sure that no one would've taken my edits seriously then! ;)

Actually there's nothing special about it. I just like short names, but of course on a project with over 3,000,000 registered accounts many of those are taken; so when I registered I tried different combinations of three letters until I found one that wasn't used. The only disadvantage is I'm not sure how to pronounce it! – Qxz 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're interested, I'm thinking of improving Wiki as well; suggestions and help would be most welcome. The statistics say it's the most-viewed article, and unlike Wikipedia (which is in second place) it's not even good-article standard yet — it was briefly but was delisted, and needs a lot of work. It's unlikely to be featured but I think good-article status is feasible – Qxz 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, lead us not into temptation. ;) I really appreciate the invitation, but I think I would be out of my depth on Wiki, although I would sincerely give it a game try. Right now, I'm sort of trying to shepherd the EB, etc. to FAC; after that, the future is cloudy, although my dreams are haunted with Knitter and Nature, the homophonic pair.

Thanks for fixing that EB ref, BTW! :) Willow 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Your recent edits to Wikipedia are pushing things in the right direction; thanks for that. I've already added the quote you removed to History of Wikipedia, where it helps to fill out the appropriate section, and I might look into incorporating some of the other material that's been trimmed – Qxz 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, not sure what's happening with that image. It showed up at 400px for me, but I was about to say that was slightly too big and resize it to 350px, and I couldn't get that version to show up. :) Image sizes that have been used before are faster to load, because they've been cached; the servers are having a bad day, perhaps – Qxz 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"An Affectionate Woman Riding a Beast"? OK, I'm scared now... – Qxz 20:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I like to ride horses — what's wrong with that? I even work at a stables part-time. I'm rather affectionate towards all good-natured animals, even my more religious brethren; I only hope that they forgive my innocent fun. ;) Willow 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you probably know this: the "affectionate woman riding a beast' is a major figure in the Book of Revelations that brings on the end of days so worrisome to our friend at Talk:Wikipedia? I couldn't resist the temptation to indulge in a little light-hearted self-deprecation and affectionate vandal-tweaking. Ta ta for tonight, Willow 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you didn't sign as "Whore of Babylon"; that's probably against the username policy. :) I've been looking through Wiki's related articles and there are cleanup tags as far as the eye can see, so I guess that's something to do once Wikipedia is sorted. I'll try and have a look at History of the Encyclopædia Britannica soon, and possibly make some more changes to the main article. You've done a lot on Wikipedia today; much appreciated – Qxz 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping by to applaud you on taking the opportunity for that excellent signature. Opabinia regalis 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeay! We're on at the same time! Yeay, yeay, yeay! :D Fortunately, I don't feel sleepy at all....zzzzzzzzz ;) So good to hear from you, Sleepy Salix 07:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)