User talk:WillowW/Archive17

P3
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)

Mourning dove


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.


 * Sorry. I tend to think in lyrics. I have not the gift of poetry. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The only score worth keeping is the number of smiles we bring to each other, no? :) I do love poetry, and one poet above all others, but what matters more is the feeling evoked, don't you think?  Sky-born poetry can become sky-buried among unfeeling or unsympathetic people; whereas pulses can quicken and hearts swell to more than words can reach. :) Willow (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you ever decide to go nuts on your favorite poet, consider me on the team. Random alert: I found tire treads on p. 154 of Everglades: An Environmental History. Fat car tire treads. Is it not enough that people pollute the land itself? Must they also run amok over the literature written about it? (In another I found this on the first page: "Dedicated to the victims of Hurricane Andrew, including the humans.") I've thought about keeping a list somewhere of all the nutty things I find, like vandalism in a book about Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings in a shaky elderly cursive, mocking the author's narrow misogynistic focus, or the dingy, filthy appearance of the two Book Review pages for The Yearling in the UF library (TKAM's pages were kinda dirty, too). Or the guy straddling his motorcycle sitting in front of the Rosewood town sign, just staring at it. I found out that once I had my original copy of this signed, it's now worth $950, which stunned the hell out of me. But what was even better was the inscription from the author in my original copy of this one: "Nudge me awake!" I went to NYC to see her play, and had a beer with her in the Stonewall Inn. I still can't get over it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apollonius
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)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
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)

With hope but not expectation
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)


 * There is a Willow grows aslant the brook... I won't drown this time, I promise. ;)


 * Of course, I would be delighted to do it! I'm still feeling, well, unsettled, but I think that learning new things helps me feel happier and more settled, especially if I'm learning them with someone or for someone.  You should know that I would walk to the ends of the earth for you, especially after you helped so much with my recent haunting. ;)


 * I found a copy of Emmy's Galois field paper, but I need to warn you that I feel like I'm graduating from "See Spot run" to Shakespeare. I don't understand much. :(  But my experience is that if I brood over something for a few days, then somehow things begin to fall into place magically, without me having to do too much.  Like watching a jigsaw puzzle gradually assemble itself, and you cry for delight when you first recognize the picture?  Perhaps friendly spirits will whisper the secrets to me in dreams. :) Anyway, if you can be patient with me for a few days, I have a sweet and steadfast hope (but not an expectation ;) that I might understand it enough to pretend to explain it to others in a few days.  Willow (talk) 17:33, 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)


 * I'm on it, chief! :) Willow (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Herr" Noethe is very underrated. Her work on conservation laws was viewed as just a throwaway and trivial by Emmy, but was really impressive, at least in physics (maybe not in mathematics particularly).--Filll (talk) 18:30, 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)


 * I wish you could hear me giggle every time you say "wow", although I daresay I'd blush tremendously if you did. :P I'm really glowing and glad you like it. :) I think we should be patient and serene, though, and not rush into the FAC until maybe mid-next week?  I feel my own limitations keenly and I worry that I might've mis-said something, or overlooked something important, or something like that; I'd be much happier and reassured if the article had been looked over and checked by at least one or two mathematicians.  Also, I'd like a chance to read the article through myself, and brood over it for a day or two, now that I've had a chance to read up on Emmy.  I also wouldn't want to distract Awadewit while she's moving mountains, but perhaps we could prevail upon her to give it a quick scan?  She seems like the perfect person to gauge how far our little candle throws her beams. Willow (talk) 22:00, 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, 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)


 * Math looks good. I fixed one terminology thing in the Galois theory.  There are one or two issues in the division algebra section, but I don't think they are important enough to impact an FAC review.  The main problem is that the wikipedia coverage of division algebras is very poor.  The two specific problems in the article are: (1) that "division algebra" is used a few times when I believe "central simple algebra" is meant (division algebras don't split, they are the not-splittiest), and (2) the Brauer-Noether theorem is also called (and exists as a redlink under) the Albert-Brauer-Hasse-Noether theorem, as well as the BHN theorem.  Albert proved most of the good stuff about cyclic algebras (and has the clearest roof of the theorem in his textbook), and Hasse proved lots of the good stuff about the local-global.  These are minor issues, and only were wrong in the article because a biography of Emmy is being forced to stand in for real coverage of the pure mathematics.  The biography should be on the impact of her work, not nitty gritty, precise statements of it in modern language.
 * A good source for the mathematics (for a mathematician) is Albert's textbook on division algebras, Jacobson's humorously named "Basic Algebra II", and Reiner's "Maximal Orders". A good source for a mathematical biography is Curtis's Pioneers of Rep Theory, though I forget how much detail is given.
 * At any rate, enough nitpicking: the math section looks good. There are no errors in relevant material, and the only issues are the lack of well written pure mathematics articles to link into the biography. JackSchmidt (talk) 02:37, 17 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&trade;, 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)


 * Maybe we could speak in codes, finding a choice Sonnet or play-quote that expresses our sentiments and then citing the smallest unambiguous link to it? For example, you could write, "Dear Willow, CXXX." and I could reply, "Oh Scartol, XXX." See how easy? ;)  In the meantime, here's one of my favourite Shakespeare poems. ;) Willow (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What a glorious poem. Thanks so much. It reminds me so of Barton Fink: "This is a wrestling picture -- the audience wants to see action, adventure -- wrestling! And plenty of it. They don't want to see a guy wrestling with his soul! Well, maybe a little bit for the critics. But you make it the carrot that wags the dog -- too much of it, they head for the exits -- I don't blame 'em! There's plenty of poetry right inside that ring, Fink!" I'll stop now. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request:Anekantavada
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 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)

Keep trying at WP Math
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)


 * Thank you very much for your kind letter, Jack! Your warm support is very heartening, and I'll be happy to remind the Math WikiProject once it's at FAC.  Willow (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to letting the FA Team have a go?
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)
 * Btw, I don't mean to sound ominous, here's what I'm looking at:

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 :)


 * I actually like Tony, so I wouldn't want to upset him. I prefer spaced em-dashes, but I'm resigned to not using them, and I think the article won't suffer too much as a consequence. ;) Willow (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have told everyone that Tony is a good guy who plays fair, but bless his heart, spaced em-dashes do drive him crazy. I think we're all agreed that hair-spaces around the em-dashes would be nice, but we don't have those, so we're just trying to make do with what we've got.  I tend to use spaced en-dashes as a compromise, myself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * I need them written out to help me proofread the article; my eyes can't reliably discern the differences between a hyphen, minus sign and an en-dash. Perhaps it's uncharitable of me, but I think we all have more pressing matters to discuss than changes that are utterly invisible to the reader, such – or –.  Willow (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like that argument. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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.)


 * Sure, perhaps a spaced en-dash would be better here. Don't worry about impressing me; I'm very grateful for your interest and help! :) Willow (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's helpful (and even if it's not), WP:MoS says: "All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; July 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but July–August 1940".

4. "4th century" doesn't take a hyphen, "4th-century report" does.


 * If I did that, it was a mistake; I should know better. :P Willow (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And so on...nothing serious, as you can see, and I want to make sure people who have reviewed more articles than I have are checking my work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I'd be delighted if the FA-Team looked it over, Dan, and thank you for thinking of me! :) I think the more the merrier, especially when they're smart people who want only to improve the article.  I'll try to address some of your points right away, so that they can focus on other things.  I also received some good advice from Melchoir on the Talk page, which I'm going to take.  Willow (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey doke, if you have tidying to do, I'll bring it up with the FA-Team in a couple of days. I want to sink my teeth into their latest assignment anyway, Solar energy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Einstein stuff

 * Hi Willow, it's good to hear from you. I remember coming across the List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein at some point, and noting your involvement.  I'm on the verge of a wiki-break – the World Science Festival is going to start in two weeks, and that eats up all my time, spare and otherwise, at the moment. I do manage to slowly but steadily address the comments at Peer_review/General_relativity/archive1 (general relativity is the next article I want to bring to FA status), though, and I will try to head over to the FAC discussion later on. But yes, later in the summer, I'd be glad to continue the slow-but-steady progress we made with Introduction to general relativity. All the best, Markus Poessel (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Noether's Emmy
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)

Sex and profanity
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)


 * I have Willow's talk page watchlisted. When this subheading showed up in my list it was the very first thing I clicked on.  I actually feel like I was the victim of false advertising though.  Intriguing title, but that quote isn't really good enough to justify it.  Can you try again? --JayHenry (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a great laugh, too; thank you! :D Now I have to find some of Lorimer's stories, so that I can learn proper improprieties. ;)  This is really random, but does anyone know who wrote that Depression-era story about two kindly but impish drunks who break into an apartment to bring Christmas to an old lady who lived alone?   A teacher read it to us when I was very young, but he didn't tell us the author name, and I've never forgotten the story and would love to read it again?  I remember that the rogues had a thick patois and the story begins with them leaving a speakeasy. Willow (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. Oh, yes, what kind of hostess would I be if I didn't offer refreshments to my guests, each to their own liking? ;) Hmmm, let's see: sex and profanity.  For profanity, there's none better than Catullus, especially his masterpiece: poor fudge-packed Furius! ;)  And for slightly sexy stories with noble characters, there are some wonderful choices in the Decameron (the barrel!) and in the Arabian Nights — perhaps The Porter and the Three Ladies, with its "basil of the bridges"?  But if you'd like to stay here to dine, perhaps this will satisfy you


 * Sed contra accipies meros amores,
 * seu quid suavius elegantiusve est:
 * nam unguentum dabo, quod meae puellae
 * donarunt Veneres Cupidinesque;
 * quod tu cum olfacies, deos rogabis
 * totum ut te faciant, Fabulle, nasum


 * In return, you'll receive my unmixed love
 * or something smoother and finer:
 * namely, a girl's perfumed oil which
 * the gods of Love have graced her with;
 * Once you have tasted her scent, you will beg;
 * you will beg the gods to make you nothing but nose.


 * With warm affections, Willow (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a rather huge fan of Damon Runyon, and two impish drunks speaking oddly sounds like the sort of story Runyon would write, but I haven't heard of that one in particular. That's my best guess, though. --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you must be right; thank you so much, Moni!! I can't wait to go to the library and find that story, which made me laugh so.  My English teacher was a jolly, good-natured old man, and so devoted to us students; he always did wonderful voices when reading to us, bringing the characters to life.  I have as sweet memories of him as I do of the story itself.  I also haven't forgotten about the Everglades, nor what you said about following one's passion du jour; thanks for that, too. :)  Willow (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After thinking about this, the only Christmas story I know of of Runyon's is called "Three Wise Guys", and it starts off with guys drinking at Good Time Charley's and they tell a story about a bank heist they did in the sticks (happened to be in Bethlehem, PA - I know you know where this is going), and they ended up stashing the money in a barn where a woman was giving birth... Not saying Runyon didn't write the story you're referencing, but that might help maybe. Runyon wrote another called "Butch Minds the Baby" where a safecracker takes his infant son on a job with him, and the narrator describes the kid looking as "wiser than a treeful of owls". For some reason, that cracked me up. I love Runyon. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I found it, I found it, I found it! :D I didn't make it to my library before I had to leave for work, but I typed "Damon Runyon Christmas" into Google and the very first link was "Dancing Dan's Christmas", which is exactly the story our teacher read to us.  Everything was just as I remembered it, down to the smile on the old lady's lips as she dreamed of Santa Claus visiting her stocking.  I can still see my teacher laughing so hard that he could scarcely read and tears coming to his eyes. :)  Thank you, Moni, for a Christmas gift in May. :) Willow (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I confess, I don't remember ever hearing of Damon Runyon until yesterday, although his stories seem wonderful from my brief online acquaintance. I guess my short-story education only made it up to O. Henry, whom I love.  "Louie, this looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship." ;)  Thanks muchly, Willow (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness...you have been unacquainted with Mr. Runyon except for your brief brush with greatness in grade school. Read "Butch Minds the Baby", "Social Error", "Tobias the Terrible", "The Brain Goes Home", "The Lily of St. Pierre", "Earthquake", "Dark Dolores", "Sense of Humor", and "Lillian". I first came into contact with him when I ditched class in 11th grade in the English pod bookroom, and picked up a book of short stories to avoid having to read Thomas Hardy in class. I'm so much better for it. Were gangsters like Runyon portrayed them, I would have loved to have seen them all. I'm very glad I was able to point you in the right direction. I'm getting so sentimental of Runyon, and his page needs a little bit of work...hmmm...--Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm so there; I can't wait to get to the library and see which Runyon books they have! :) I really empathize about Thomas Hardy.  I struggled through Jude the Obscure in high school on the fervent recommendation of a classmate, who thought I would "totally relate" to a country person teaching themselves Latin and Greek.  But I found it mightily depressing and annoyingly implausible in parts. :(  Usually, I prefer implausible stories, but somehow implausible in a different — maybe more cheery? — way, like a Dickens novel or magical realism.  Willow (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, stranger
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)


 * Hey Yolgnu,


 * I'm so glad that you wrote again, since I was planning on writing to you as well! I have very nice memories of our brief time working together. In March I wrote to Awadewit that you were this wonderfully promising exception to the Willow-curse and that I hoped neither of us got hit by a meteor before we had a chance to really collaborate on Catullus.  It was a big joke, but that sort of happened with action potential, which was unusually hard on me for personal reasons.  But thanks to everyone's kindness, I'm coming out of that, and I'd be happy to work with you again.  I'm busy with a few things now, but why don't we think about starting afresh next week sometime?  Willow (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. It's not actually my main interest though, as I said, so there's no pressure on you to quickly get around to it.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help
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)

Request for Peer Review help
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 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 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. 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, Ruhrfisch, that I will be unable to help with Peer Reviews for the foreseeable future. I'll remove my name from the list to forestall any further confusion.  Willow (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - I just spammed everyone on the list. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Collaborate on Catullus?
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)


 * You're right, I should clarify my user page; thanks for pointing that out!


 * Yolgnu and I are being relaxed about it, but here's our most recent plan. As you can see above, Yolgnu's busy with vulgarities — undoubtedly a warm-up for Catullus 16 ;) — and I'm busy for probably the next 10 days with bringing List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein and problem of Apollonius to Featured List and Article status, respectively.  If you'd like to get busy right away, you could track down more references for scholarly articles about individual Catullus poems.  I managed to track down 60 or so, but I'm sure you can do better.  We especially need to fill in more about the elegiac couplet poems after, say, Catullus 64.  In the meantime, please don't delete what's there already; add, rather than subtract.  We can discuss among ourselves later what we should keep.  Thanks for being understanding, Willow (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had actually stumbled across the conversations between you and Yolgnu a few weeks ago. I have been doing quite a bit of lurking on the talkpages of the Wikipedia Catullus as I have have been cleaning up the same over at Vicifons. If you have specific resources you are looking for on the elegiac poems, please let me know. I have excellent library connections. Otherwise we should probably talk about the WikiCatullus on individual poem talkpages or at Talk:Poetry of Catullus. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 20:31, 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)

And another
Yay! Congrats, W. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both of you! But there's more to be done on that list: all the linking of topics and filling in that last column completely.  I've started drafting my notes already; truly, there's no rest for the wicked. ;)  But also no happiness for the slothful; I'm very happy that it passed. I haven't managed to finish any of my projects for over a year, and I was beginning to get frustrated with myself.  One down and, ummm, 9 heptillion left to go. ;) Willow (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I'll try to help out more with the list of baryons; that was surprising, no? :( Willow (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew it would not gain support right away after I rewrote the overview because of the lack of references and the display and sortability bugs some users mention. However, I didn't expect it to fail since I was actively addressing the things. I'm not pissed about it since the last bunch of comments were particularly useful, and there's plenty to fix and expand. With the failing, I can do things at a more reasonable pace. I'll re-apply in probably less than a week. Of course, help is always welcomed. :)

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)


 * I totally sympathize, and I'm a little dreading the same at problem of Apollonius, which I and others have been grooming for, lo, these five months, if I recall correctly. I'll stop by next week to help with the baryons, too; good luck! :) Willow (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Emmy notes

 * The phrase in the lead about her showing intellectual promise at a young age disagrees with what I've read elsewhere, who seem to characterize her as "not (noticeably) special". Is there a source for that? Willow (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was referring to the rapid solving of the brainteaser at the birthday party, discussed in the first section of the article itself. But it's confusing, so I changed it to discuss her use of her middle name instead. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "She spent the next fourteen years gaining respect for her groundbreaking mathematics work." The obituaries by Weyl, van der Waerden and Alexandrov suggest that her groundbreaking work in mathematics began with her Second Epoch, with publication #17 in 1920, "Moduln..." and especially with her "Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen".  Her Noether's theorems were seminal in physics, but my impression is that her earlier mathematics work was pretty good, but not amazing and transcendent. Willow (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're clearly more qualified to revise this sort of thing than I. Changed to: "...working on Galois theory and theoretical physics." – Scartol  •  Tok  15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence in the lead about Bartel Leendert van der Waerden makes it sound as though he were her co-worker, rather than her devoted student. My impression is that he served as Noether's chief expositor and popularizer, making it clear to other people just how powerful her results and methods were.  I guess Emmy wasn't great at championing herself.  Willow (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it kinda feels like this is shrouded in uncertainty, due to the fact that – as you say – she wasn't much of a self-promoter; the gender hierarchies of the time; and the constantly shifting and poorly-defined roles she played at various institutions. I tried to word it as fairly as I could, since even though she deserved more credit than she got, it's still true that they "worked together". (After all, the same could be said for my students and myself.) – Scartol  •  Tok  15:22, 31 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)
 * We're ready for FAC. This article would be half of its current excellence without ya, W. I can't thank you enough.


 * One last thing: A comment on the talk page points out that the section on Invariant theory and elimination theory doesn't mention what she contributed. I know you want to work on this more, but perhaps for now you could just throw in a brief sentence or two? (I'd do it but I wouldn't have a clue what to add.) I'm going to fix the nicht beamteter ausserordentlicher Professor dealie and then FAC it up. Hold on tight! – Scartol  •  Tok  15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm working on just that. Naturally, there's not much at my local library — which doesn't even have Damon Runyon — but I've found a few resources on the Internet, including a fragment of this excellent book by David Hilbert.  I'm re-reading Emmy's available publications from that First Epoch, and they're gradually coming into focus, so I'll try to add something to those paragraphs by tomorrow.   Something I think you'll find hilarious: remember how I said that I sometimes need to find a musical soundtrack to listen to over and over while I'm learning something very hard, like Portishead for action potential?  Don't laugh—ok, even I have to laugh ;)—this time, it's ABBA. ;)  Don't ask me why, but it helps in understanding Emmy and it's slightly cheerier than P-head.  I came across it in my CD collection; one of my sisters gave it to me a few years ago rather randomly, and I'd never really listened to it.  So it has nice memories bound up with it, too. :) I'm still not sure whether it'll be enough to help me grasp Emmy. Willow (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeay indeed! I'll fix these things soon – probably tomorrow or Saturday. (It's been a heckuva week at school.) Thanks thanks thanks thanks. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My first user-page vandalism after two years at Wikipedia — yeay! :)


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)


 * Dude, no lie. You're one of the cool kids now?! What article work prompted the heaping of abuse or was it all just random? --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've actually thought about vandalizing my userpage from a different IP, to see if other folks would come to my rescue. =) How ridiculous would that be? Sock puppetry as litmus test of wikifriendship. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:00, 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)


 * Well, that explains that. I suppose we each select the method which best suits us – shall we call it knit-picking? Ha! – Scartol  •  Tok  21:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fire
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)


 * To Scartol: Yes, I do need your help!


 * Beautiful and intoxicating; thank you, Moni. :)


 * My favorite dreams are those when I'm just about to wake up, and I hear thousands of voices talking to me in different voices all at the same time, and I understand them all, following the thread of every conversation. It's thrilling and beautiful, and I wake up transcendently happy.


 * Something like a dream: Once, while sitting unhappy and alone under a tree, I had a sudden, marrow-freezing vision of the entire universe (or so it seemed to me). I thought I could see everything and everyone all together in a instant, from the greatest clusters of galaxies to the smallest atoms and particles, and every soul and form within.  And I saw how beautifully harmonious it all was; it was — glorious.  I walked away from the tree very, very happy.  The vision lasted only a split second, and I've never received it again or anything like it, but once in lifetime suffices for something like that.  Perhaps I was flickeringly crazy, or ergot-addled, or who-knows-what; but that was and is my kind of Fire. :) Willow (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Every once in a while I look at a person and see the same figure in many countries across many continents, or throughout thousands of generations across history, in a flash. It is at once mind-halting and fascinating. When the subject is performing some act of negligence or evil, it is very depressing, suggesting we have always been this way and we always will be. Perhaps I should ingest your ergot to see everything's atomic connections. It may give me the mood-boost I need. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)