User talk:WillowW/Archive4

Cyclol
Sorry to hassle you again over this one, but you seem to be under the impression that there is one single "Scientific Method" (my capitals). If there is such a thing, then nobody has been able to define it... I completely agree with you that the history of cyclols is a great example of how science works in practice (including making huge simplifications which later turn out to be unjustified, but which also allow development in parallel fields) However, you cannot simply try to fit it into one philosophical background, given the general difficulty in defining "science". Scientists do not behave "like they should do" according to philosophers, and this aspect also needs to be discussed. Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Physchim62, I feel really bad that I haven't been able to work on Cyclol, and hope that you'll forgive me. I do believe that your insights will improve the article, but it is a significant undertaking, as I'm sure you agree.  As I see it, there are two difficulties lying before us.  First and foremost, we need to come to agreement about the scope of the concept "scientific method" suitable for the Cyclol article.  Secondly, we need to correct my failings of exposition, which resulted in some misapprehensions (factual inaccuracies) in your proposed replacement text.  Let's focus on the first difficulty for now.


 * I'll say upfront that I'm daunted by the philosophy of science, although I have an elementary understanding of the practice of science. I do appreciate that science is done in many, many ways and that personality & funding issues can play as big a role as scientific observations.  But I also feel that an exposition of the various philosophies of scientific reasoning lies outside the scope of the article, as you probably agree.  We also probably agree that the Cyclol episode is not illustrative of how Knowledge can be acquired, but rather of how scientific theories are accepted or rejected by the scientific community.  We should also consider the background knowledge of our typical reader; it seems plausible to assume that most readers will be unfamiliar with the extensive literature on the philosophy of the scientific method.


 * As far as I have been able to glean, a major division between Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Karl Popper is how they model changes in scientific theories. However, those differences do not pertain here, since the Cyclol theory was the very first structural model of a protein; it was not replacing any prior picture.


 * I'm pretty sure that using experimental observations to rule out hypotheses is a very, very old principle/practice in science (Galileo springs to mind) and was not invented by Karl Popper, whatever his originality in nomenclature.  So we don't need to mention him or any of the other 20th century philosophers, right?


 * Shall we pause here? I'm interested in your reactions, especially because I may have misunderstood you and/or the difficulty. Willow 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!
– ClockworkSoul 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyclol FA
Congrats on your hard work paying off! Great job! – ClockworkSoul 15:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Clockwork! The FA made me very happy; but  the article was &mdash; and continues to be &mdash; the work of several committed editors, all of whom should be thanked and congratulated on their work. :)  Perhaps we'll tackle homology modeling next?  Willow 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New Encyclopædia Britannica contribs
Great job on Encyclopædia Britannica, your contributions there are really looking good! Keep it up! :) JoeSmack Talk 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Not in EB
Template:Not in EB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void  20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pleonastic apodictics from the MP
I gather you must be the sweet-natured shepherdess who guides these articles through the treacherous shoals, a veritable Phlegyasian figure. I suspect that your work on the Encyclopedia Britannica article has revealed to you that the Britannica stalwarts have constructed a family of encyclopedic articles aimed at at least 6 different levels of sophistication, all the way from preschool to postgraduate level. I agree with you that something like this might eventually be of value here on Wikipedia. For example, consider the articles evolution, Introduction to evolution and evolution. Granted, they still all need quite a bit of polishing, but one can imagine that eventually they might approach the model you have in mind.

On one of your other points, suppose we waited until an article was reasonably complete before it was polished and the text turned into English, the introduction made accessible to the hoi polloi, etc. This has several potential drawbacks: I apologize for my circumlocutious prolixity and ambagious dialectic. I remain, yours, the MP --Filll 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the article might take several years to reach some sort of complete state, and in that meantime it might be far less useful than it otherwise might be
 * editors can take ownership and jealously guard even the most incomprehensible and unreadable text, making it impossible to effect needed changes if one waits too long. Editors can feel that there is no reason to change since the text has been "stable" for a long time.
 * nonspecialists in a given area will not be encouraged to participate if the article is inaccessible, overly laden with jargon etc. I have contributed far more to articles outside my area of expertise than in my specialty areas. I can offer fresh insight in outside areas. I also learn more that way. I have written critiques of the lead sections of several areas in biology. I might very well be blind to the shortcomings of articles in my own area. I have worked with some of the wording and concepts for so long that I assume "everyone" knows that, when in fact it is not even remotely true.


 * It's wonderful to meet someone cut from the same cloth; clearly, we both share an intoxicated love of words, especially Greek ones. Your words seem to lift off the page and transform before my eyes into shining gold Greek letters, suspended in the air.


 * You excellently distill an all-too-common trap that any editor can fall into. It's so hard to read our own articles with fresh eyes, to imagine ourselves reading the article for the first time and sincerely struggling to understand it.  And once having recognized the problem, it's even harder to lay out that honey trail, to craft an article that edifies the beginner but satisfies the expert (or, at least doesn't provoke their disdain!)


 * Luckily, we're not alone &mdash; we have each other. Opabinia has been my very best eyes, seeing what I could not, and transforming my thorny thickets into beautiful gardens. I know she sincerely believes as you do in making Wikipedia's articles accessible, which is Wikipedia's most fundamental promise.   Please let me encourage you to be patient with her, and with me, and with the rest of us here; we may yet surprise you with how fast we make our articles both readable and complete.  I vow, perhaps more ardently than wisely, that even you will be content with gene and DNA and genetics before 2007 is over.  With affection for my logophilic friend, Willow 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I've been working on Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector for a while now, and am considering submitting it early next year as a Featured Article candidate. Would you be so kind as to look it over and share your thoughts?  It seems perfectly suited to your talents. :)


 * I am not a conventional MP. I have travelled far and wide in search of interesting applications. I did spend more than a year at one point doing research in computational linguistics. I also spent a considerable amount of time taking classes in French literature (en Français, bien sur). I did take a quick glance at your article on what we call the RL vector. The figures are beautiful. I will look at it more carefully later and make more extensive comments, but I do see notation problems, and some terminology problems and confusions. The RL vector is a beautiful result, however.


 * P.S. Frau Noethe was not impressed with her work in this area, since she was a real mathematician, and her efforts on this problem were trivial for her. I understand she considered it beneath her, since she did not work on such garbage. She worked on real problems instead of toys, unlike the physicists. The physicists on the other hand, were overjoyed and this sort of group theoretic reasoning that she employed still occupies a prominent place in the pantheon of MP results. She was also a bit haphazard in her appearance, so her students took to calling her "Herr Noethe". There is a story told by physicists for the last century about how during a lecture when she was filling blackboard after blackboard with the densest equations, her underpants came loose and dropped to the floor. She did not miss one word or one symbol. She did not pause for one second. Frau Noethe stepped deftly out of her undergarments which were around her ankles and kicked them aside so she could continue calculating furiously, to the amazement of her students. When she was being hired as a faculty member, Hilbert had to do battle with the other faculty members in literature and history etc, who were not happy about females invading academe. Hilbert famously said "Meine Herren, eine Universität ist doch keine Badeanstalt!" to quiet their objections. I even put that quote in my thesis.-Filll 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector at ru.wikipedia
Hi! I'm sorry to say that I didn't participate in the discussion (my comments were on other articles): my knowledge of physics is mostly limited to the school curriculum. Anyway, the vote there is for Good Article status, not FA, and it's irrelevant to the subject. So far what has been questioned is style (one commenter says "it feels like a translation") and the translation of some technical terms. I'll keep you updated if something valuable appears. Edricson 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Has been made a good article with little further substantive comment Edricson 12:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tack så mycket, Edricson! Det var mycket snäll av Dig. God Jul och til senare, vänlig Willow 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Several FYI's
I know you're traveling and enjoying the holidays, but here's a couple of tidbits you might want to know when you get back - Happy holidays! Opabinia regalis 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tim recently expanded the history of molecular biology article with a lot of information on the history of DNA, and suggested moving the protein history stuff to the same place. I trimmed the history section of protein and moved the rest to a subsection in the history article, but since you wrote most of that text, feel free to change or revert.
 * You had mentioned an interest in Johann Sebastian Bach before - there's an ongoing discussion/minor dispute about whether to include an infobox.


 * Thanks, Opabinia! :)


 * I've been thinking warm thoughts about you all, but it's remarkably hard to get to the Internet from my little-too-Luddite family. But I managed to get on tonight, by good fortune. :)


 * My little niece loves her princess scarf (which I finished Christmas morning - whew!) as does her mom, who's also happy that I'm spending so much time playing Ariel&Eric with her. My other sisters all want scarves, too, so I've been very busy here, tinkering with different yarns and colors and patterns.  My little niece was sitting on my lap when I called up your user page and, as soon as she saw your DNA clamp, she pointed at it and said, "Oooh &mdash; beautiful!".  Praise indeed, no?  A tribute from untutored hearts. :)


 * Everyone's healthy, thank goodness, and I've had some surprising serendipity. My great-aunt has a beautiful 1954 version of the EB, which I'm pilfering for details for the FA.  Unfortunately, no one around here has a copy machine, so it's all hand notes taken in the odd moments when I'm not busy.  My aunt, knowing my encyclopedic curiosity, just now promised to give it to me when she moves into her final home a few years hence; I'm really grateful but also impatient. :(


 * Even more surprising, it came out that one of my sisters accidentally met one of the 14 Editorial Advisors of the EB at a party, who casually described being summoned to a rushed, hush-hush meeting of their Board. The Advisor in question was delightfully free of brand loyalty and described rather sardonically the desperation of the EB management to counter the rising threat of Wikipedia, delivering the modern version of mene, mene, tekel upharsin: "You snooze, you lose." ;)  My sister didn't know any more details, unfortunately, and I couldn't bring myself to ask her to spy for me, whatever my affections for WP.  Besides, I'm coming to realize just how different, how unlike in kind, the EB and WP actually are; we have no need to imitate them or measure ourselves by them; we can follow our own and perhaps better star.


 * In a moment of weakness, I bought the TIME magazine that praises the "cosmic compendium of Wikipedia", and realized to my horror that I do live in an alternate universe. The profile of SimonP was cool but, personally, I think they should've chosen someone even more photogenic and cooler &mdash; although, admittedly, the five eyes and toothy snout might've disturbed a few of TIME's more sensitive readers. ;)  Beauty's in the eye, as they say; five eyes = 2.5x beauty? :)


 * Happy New Year and see you soon, Willow 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, nice to hear from you again, and happy 2007! I just returned from vacation/visiting/etc. last night and it is amazing how much goes on around here after a few days of relative inattention. (Of course, the last week may have been unusually eventful.) Now here's hoping your niece continues to think that proteins are beautiful as she grows up, and eventually becomes a biochemist :) I second your sisters' appreciation for hand-knitted scarves; I have one from an aunt that is just about the warmest and softest inanimate object I own.


 * Hmm, what kind of party is this where EB advisors are lurking about? :) That's very interesting that EB management considers Wikipedia a threat - I would've thought it was more of a "scoff, they're just people playing on the internet" sort of attitude. But maybe that attitude has already come and gone, like so many established, 'traditional' companies that failed to take advantage of the web when they had the opportunity. I'm not at all familiar with the Britannica web edition (how closely does it match the print version?) but as far as I can tell, it's used for entirely different purposes than Wikipedia - mainly, among my admittedly non-representative sample of "various acquaintances' school-age children", Britannica is used in school libraries and for schoolwork, because they're told that Wikipedia is an unacceptable reference for these things. (Of course, I recall being told that it was never appropriate to cite a tertiary source in a school paper...) Wikipedia is used for casual trivia questions, 'common knowledge' information that people have forgotten and don't know where else to find, and background information on famous people.


 * I haven't seen the complete issue of Time, but I read the SimonP blurb online. Maybe there's more context to it in the print version - and maybe this is my own biases showing through - but did it seem to you that the profile was written with a slightly sneering overtone? They only get five paragraphs and choose to use the space to mention that he's a bit overweight, unemployed, and lives with his parents?


 * To get back to work - I'll read through Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector again; that's great that another highly technical article is on FAC. I still have to finish with proteasome, though I may be a little less active than usual in the next few weeks, as a few of my relatives have been generous enough to collectively introduce me to a highly effective time-wasting device :) Opabinia regalis 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. The "personality" essay on your user page is keenly insightful, so sharp that I feel a little cut myself. I sometimes worry about being too personal, too unprofessional and generally indecorous; but, on the other hand, it's hard to repress enthusiasm when I feel safe, as in Wikipedia.  I appreciate Geogre's thinking, but I might say it differently: we Wikipedians should try to be perfectly selfless, writing only for the pleasure of sharing knowledge or, speaking for myself, of showing friends some overlooked beauty.  It may seem paradoxical, but I think one can be selfless and a personality at the same time; the anonymity of the username gives us the rare opportunity to do good for its own sake, without any question of ulterior motives, don't you agree?  A few random thoughts from Willow 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was attracted to that essay as a clear statement of my frustrations with the sort of users who think they're on a chat forum that happens to have an encyclopedia attached. I think it's great for article writers to have personality - and for writers who interact regularly to have a little community spirit - but not so great for people to cultivate reputations as "Wikipedia personalities". That is, we shouldn't have online equivalents of Paris Hilton - who everyone recognizes, but no one can identify a productive thing she's done to deserve such recognition - and we shouldn't have the attendant legions of fans and wannabes either. Maybe I'm a bit exopedian for having posted very little personal information, but for Wikipedia purposes I'm just a fossil on the Internet. (And FWIW I think you are neither unprofessional nor indecorous, and you have earned the right to scoff at decorum if you so choose ;) Opabinia regalis 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, for one fleeting instance, we're on at the same time. :) I have to run (family calls, literally) but happy 2007 to you, too! Thanks for the kind words, too; I'll enter the New Year a happier Willow.  You're the best, and here's hoping that you're with friends, too, Willow 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's great that you've been able to stay so exopedian. I cherish the anonymity, because it does seem wonderful that we can act for good without being dismissed as self-serving. I'll try to preserve it as long as I can, but I'm reconciled to the possibility that I might be outed some day, rather like the chaste poetess in Saki's Tobermory.  After all, how many Sappho-loving knitters can there be in the world? ;) Willow 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I caught the same vibe from SimonP; oh well, in five paragraphs, one can speak only in tropes. :(
 * PPS. Have fun with Wii and thanks in advance for the LRL vector! :)

Another FYI
FYI, Tim thinks you are wonderful, as he received his present. TimVickers 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was merrily given, richly deserved and altogether fitting. ;) Christmas came early for me this year with Enzyme and got only better after that.  Perhaps I'll tackle Protein &mdash; with Opabinia? &mdash;  as a little αντίδωρον for DNA; ummm, at least I might after I fulfil my promises on Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, Encyclopædia Britannica and Knitting &mdash; ack! :O <-- harried Willow


 * I'll tackle the DNA FAC when I get back, if it's still around. I finished another scarf today, and now I'm helping my sister finish her sweater; she doesn't how to make sleeves.  Feeling happy and full of YGGFMTSEKSQTPLVTLFKNAIIKNAYKKEG, Willow 10:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector
I saw your announcement about Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Could you also place your announcement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cross-posting the announcement. (People do not seem to know about the existence of astronomy WikiProjects.)  Dr. Submillimeter 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)