ʉra, nami Willow 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow, I know you will be very busy when you return, but I was wondering if you could peer review The Unsex'd Females when you get a chance. It was written by one of my wiki-friends; she was reticent about using the peer review process because she has been burned over at CfD/AfD (apparently there are some editors over there who don't yet realize that there is women's rights movement). Anyway, I would really like her first time out to be fruitful. If you have the time, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit ^Talk 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awadewit!

I'll be happy to look over your friend's article! :) A brief glance tells me that its language is elegant and fluid, but I'll need more time to look the article over and think about its architecture. I'll try hard to be helpful.

Congratulations on your latest FA, Original Stories from Real Life! You can be really proud of how it turned out. As an aside, I forgot to mention that one of our local fashion experts had some new insights into Ms. Mason's hat, although I suppose that they couldn't be put into the article, being OR.

My sister's graduation was really fun. We were all so proud of her, although I had to laugh when she waltzed across the stage in rebelliously fluorescent chartreuse wedges. ;)

I was a little depressed this morning when I discovered that someone with whom I thought I had made peace is still angry with me and thinks poorly of me. :( I went out into my garden to find harmony and it was beautiful: the strawberries and blueberries are in full bloom, the columbines and lilacs have just blossomed, and even my recalcitrant peonies are coyly hinting at future blooms. While I was there, a jolly old man with a big white beard stopped by; I had never seen him before, but he seemed wonderfully amused. As it turned out, he was a stroke victim from the nearby old-folks home and couldn't speak; but we conversed nonetheless and, by gestures, he gave me to understand that my garden was beautiful and that I had a green thumb. :) In parting, he gave me the "thumbs up" sign of approval and I went back inside wonderfully cheered up. Even now, I'm still smiling and beginning to muse on the old medieval legends of angels who walk the earth.

Another happy fruit of my trip home was that I found my old friend's story; it's from sections 439e-440a of Book IV of Plato's Republic. Thank you for inspiring me to look for it; it was beautiful, sweet way to reconnect with his memory. The tale is nearly as my friend told me, except that the Socrates tells the story of Leontios, son of Aglaion. He's returning from the local port, the Piraeus, when he senses the bodies in the execution place. He wants to look at them, but is also repulsed. After a vain struggle within himself, Leontios runs over, yanking his eyes wide open, and throws his gaze on the executed corpses, saying to his eyes, "There, take a good look, you evil demons, drink in your pretty sight!"

An added bonus came when I read further and found the passage (Book V) where Socrates affirms that women should be educated as leaders of society, having equal rights and responsibilities with their male counterparts. More generally, I enjoyed reliving Plato's poetic metaphors, and Socrates' reluctance to say anything that might mislead his friends as "worse than manslaughter" — a good quote for Wikipedia! ;)

Glad to be back and to talk with you, Willow 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have a crystallography article written by a random knitter than have a sweater knitted by a random crystallographer :) Physchim62 (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Physchim62, I wish you could hear my laughter over the Internet! :D Your letter will keep me smiling all day long. :) Thanks as always, Willow 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow, thanks for the welcome to the world of wikipedia. btw I am really impressed by the range of topics you have contributed to. Jennifer_Rfm 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your really kind message, Jennifer! I look forward to working with you very much, and I hope that you'll forgive my "blind spots", which will doubtless crop up. The Rfam project does seem like a good "starter" project for me, having only 574 families; I'm kind of awed by the people who want to add 30,000 human, mouse or plant genes to Wikipedia. Also, I've always wanted to learn more about RNA; I know a little about proteins, but I'd like to learn more about the other folding macromolecule. ;) Willow 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow,

can you by any chance find the text from our latest go-round where I cited the Gell-Mann et al article that appeared in SciAm? At the moment I can't seem to locate either the physical (in the "dead-tree" sense of the word "physical") article or the discussion where I cited it -- I've looked back in the history of talk:photon and both my and your talk page for the time I thought it was discussed (mid-August 2006) but no luck. --Trovatore 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow,

Great work on the Constraint algorithm article! I stumbled over it googling a reference, so there are probably quite a few people linking it already :)

I myself have done some work in this area (constraint algorithms) and would like to extend the section "Implicit constraint force methods" and would prefer to re-label it "Lagrange-multiplier methods", since all algorithms in this category are just different ways of solving

for the , where

.

are the constrained particle positions. The are the constraint equations and are the unconstrained particle positions. In the case of SHAKE and its cousins, the equations are formulated in terms of a correction on the particle positions. Other algorithms such as RATTLE or MSHAKE (not to be confused with M-SHAKE) use velocities and forces respectively, but use the same algorithm to solve these equations as SHAKE does.

The methods differ only in how they solve this system of equations for the , usually using a variant of Newton's method computing

iteratively where

is the Jacobian of the constraint equations.

SHAKE solves these equations using a Jacobi-Iteration (i.e. solving the th equation for the th variable, which means only using the diagonal of ) which converges linearly at a cost in .

An early paper by Ciccotti et al. even inverts the Jacobian once and re-uses it for the following iterations. This costs in the first iteration and in the following iterations and converges linearly, yet at a much faster rate than SHAKE.

M-SHAKE (Kraeutler et al.) solves this system of equations directly using an LU decomposition, converging quadratically at a cost in .

My own work (P-SHAKE) applies a pre-conditioner to the system of equations and converges quadratically in .

LINCS, although not a "traditional" SHAKE-like method, approximates the inverse of the Jacobian using a series expansion, much in the same way a is used for sparse diagonally-dominant matrices.

Anyway, what I would add would be along the lines of what I just wrote. Since this is mainly your article, I would like to know what you think before proceeding :)

Cheers and thanks for the great work! Pedro.Gonnet 08:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro! :)

I'm so happy that you like the article — yay, yay, yay! It was a surprise present for my wiki-friend and partner-in-crime, Opabinia regalis, who had asked for an article on such methods. I want(ed) it to be as nice as possible for her, so nothing would please me more than to have a real expert contribute to it. :)

Please feel free to add whatever you'd like to the article, including starting/renaming a section on Lagrange-multiplier methods. I'd named it "implicit methods" originally because Mazur's projection method didn't seem to be a Lagrange-multiplier method, although it's formally equivalent. But I'm really out of my depth here; I'm sure that you know better.

I can't wait to see what you'll add; thanks very much in advance for your help, Willow 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as promised yet a little late, here's my draft of the "Lagrage-multiplier Based Methods" section: User:Pedro.Gonnet/Constraint algorithm. I still need to fill in the blanks for the specific algorithms and I'm sure there's an error or bad explanation in there (or two). Can you have a look at it and tell me what you think?

Cheers and many thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro!

It looks good already; may I tweak a few things on your draft page? But please don't be alarmed if I can't get to it right away, though, since I'm rather swamped today! Have to run, Willow 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's what its there for! :) No rush, I've also got my own priorities, like getting a PhD ;) Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow! I finished writing the constraint stuff and added it to the article. Much of the math on the LINCS algorithm got cut, since it's pretty specific to LINCS itself. I hope I didn't cut too much! If you don't like anything, feel free to edit at will :)

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 08:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to avoid another deletion discussion is to approach this from more than one angle. A section discussing this idea from the viewpoint of the psychology of delusional behavior and cognitive bias would remove any possibility that people might regard the article as unencyclopedic. I suggest splitting off the last point of the "Mechanisms" section and making it into a new first section on whether the curse exists at all. A challenge for anybody's NPOV ability! TimVickers 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist. TimVickers 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any real reason why this article should be deleted, and I said as much in my edit summary. Maybe that will keep the vampires at bay for a little while, I don't know.... Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Physchim62! It made me very happy to see that bright orange tag come down. It seemed like an apt time for that, don't you agree? Tim's prose and Awadewit's insights seem to have improved the article, by all accounts, and hopefully allayed Lisapollison's concerns. Please be gentle-worded with her, though; I hold out hope for an eventual friendship, despite our different viewpoints, and would be sorry if she were offended by something on my Talk page. Warmly and gratefully, Willow 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your diplomacy was well-timed. I was about to lose it completely! TimVickers 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, dear Tim,

You should have more faith in yourself, in the springs of grace and good cheer within. If you're going to shed your serenity, let it be for something worthy: the death of a friend, the rejection of a love, the waste and petty tyrannies that outrage the Earth herself, or the denial of your tenure prospects. But for such a person, in such a squabble? Bah. ;) You rescued me from wiki-grief — there's a fine word, no? ;) — please let me reflect some of that light, albeit leavened with humor and humility. Chin up, Willow, who has no sanity left to lose ;) 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear right off the bat--in general, I really appreciate your edits to the article, and I make no judgement with regards to you and/or Tim Vickers. Tim is a Ph.D. student in some field of biology, and he has worked hard to clean up and improve the article. He's done a great job, but given the fact that he's human, he's not perfect by any means. I think that adding a laymen approach here and there is critical to readability, because we can overuse certain terms here and there. What concerned me about your edit was that it took a step below laymen readability. Phrases like "lack of understanding", except in a certain context, sounds unencyclopedic and somewhat POV. I thought that the paragraph was actually less clear with the edits. As I recall, I thought that most of your other edits of that time were not only acceptable but were improvements. I guess if I had more time, I would have been clearer in the summary, and I would have reverted just that phrasing. So please don't take what I did personally. If I thought you were a POV-pusher, it would have been a different conversation!!! Orangemarlin 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemarlin, thanks for your really nice note! :) But now I'm confused — wasn't the "lack of understanding" phrase put back in with your revert? Maybe just now you meant "shortcoming", which I wrote instead? But anyway, if you thought that the paragraph was worse with my edits, that's cool. If it's alright with you, may I change the "demonstrated" wording, though? I think it might improve that paragraph. Willow 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow, that's what I meant. Please stick around and help. There are a lot of scientists involved with the article, and I think they (maybe sometimes me too, but I'm about 20 years out from taking a class on Evolution) may get overly technical at times. A clear unbiased eye is always necessary. Orangemarlin 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was adopted by a stray cat last Christmas. We called her Odin as she only has one eye. She started getting fat a few weeks ago and nested in my neighbor's garden in an old crate. So far I have counted two kittens in the nest, but there might be more hiding at the back. I'm planning on adopting one - Loki might be a good kitten name. TimVickers 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One eye and a litter of kittens; the price of wisdom. ;) Loki is a fine name, although Freyja might be better for some kittens; Freyja's chariot was drawn by two cats, no? I'd recommend living with the new kitten for a while before naming him/her, to get to know their personality better; as T. S. Eliot reminds us,

The naming of cats is a difficult matter,

It isn’t just one of your holiday games;

You may think at first I’m mad as a hatter

When I tell you a cat must have three different names.

Good luck with everything, Willow 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow, I hate to ask you this, but I have become embroiled in a debate over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works). It is over how to format lists of works for authors and artists. I think that we are just repeating our arguments and not really getting anywhere. If you have the stomach for it, would you mind perusing the debate here and here. Those are the two main places that the debate occurred recently (the one on the MOS style page goes on for quite a while). If you have any insights or any hints on how to resolve the conflict, please let me know. I haven't really ever tried to change a policy and gotten into such an extended debate. If you don't want to get embroiled, I totally understand. Thanks. Awadewit ^Talk 04:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have any free time at all, Plymouth Colony could use a good peer review. The main editor and I have been around the bend a few times now and I've read the article several times now and copyedited it twice, I think, so someone else should step in. Awadewit ^Talk 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeee! I love the picture. When I was little, I once burned my sheets doing likewise; I fell asleep while reading a book under the covers by the light of an incandescent lamp. Luckily, that wasn't the last chapter for me. ;)

I read under the covers, too. With a flashlight, though. Awadewit ^Talk 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Against all odds, both my eyesight and bedclothes survived my childhood love of lit-lit. ;) Willow 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a pass at the peer review for Plymouth Colony, but it's just cursory. I've also read both bibliography debates and I'm firmly on your side, but I dread conflict. It chews me up inside, and I'm not very good at it; I'm awkward enough as it is. ;) But I'll try to do some good there as well; you have to forgive me in advance if I say something stupid. :( Let me think for a few more hours about how I should approach it. Willow 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Don't worry about the bibliography thing - I don't want to drag people in. Some people live for conflict and others not. I love to debate, but frankly, I do not love to debate nit-picky guidelines. I like to debate larger issues like religion, the energy crisis, nature vs. nurture - these sorts of things. By the way, I wanted to thank you for typing out the long Jewish prayer on my page - it was fascinating. We in the literary profession would say it is full of "tensions." As a literary scholar who practices new historicism, I particularly appreciated the historical evolution of the prayer. Awadewit ^Talk 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you liked it! :) I was a little nervous that you might find it a boring or long-winded answer to a short question; but my intuition told me that you might enjoy it, so I dared it. :) I'm likewise enjoying learning about the literary world. I'd never heard of the new historicism before — or even the old historicism (vaguely tautological, no?) — so it's wonderful to have this portal opened to a new world, and with such a nice guide. Dante never had it so good. ;) Willow 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you have created a very large number of these very short articles with long names. I ask you to forgive my ignorance on this subject, but maybe you can explain why it isn't better to merge the articles into a few larger ones that provide more needed context? Looking at Category:Small nuclear RNA, I get the sense that I am looking at a database a la WP:NOT, not an encyclopedia. Thanks, nadav (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nadav,

This is the beginning of a long-term project of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject, carried out with the help of the scientists at the Rfam database. Each of these articles (although stubby at present) represents an independent family of RNA molecules that serves a distinct biological function. For example, a family may play a particular role in RNA interference, RNA splicing or critical chemical modifications of nucleotides. It may seem difficult to discern the functions of the 500-some families right now, but I think you will see these stubs blossom into full-fledged articles on the biological function each family of RNA carries out. Please be patient with us! :) Hoping that this explains our reasoning and purpose, Willow 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It explains it perfectly, and I wish the project good luck. Thanks for excusing my ignorance! nadav (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind understanding and genteel letter — it's very much appreciated and reflects very well on you. :) Willow 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow, do you have a page reference for this WP:MCB project? At WP:CHM we are in the process of setting something similar up, and I would love to see how you deal with some of the institutional problems! (once again wanti_ng to take advantage of your hard work, but hey, it's for a good cause :P) Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Physchim62! Here's the MCB page; there's also Jennifer's talk page, where she and I worked out a few details. I'll be glad to help you as I can with your project. Forgive me, right now I've got to run, though; too much to do today! :( Willow 10:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have the same obsession with buying books that I do, but I saw one that might interest you at the sale annex at www.labyrinthbooks.com - Sian Reynolds' Britannica's Typesetters: Women Compositors in Edinburgh. It is only $8. I love book sales! Awadewit ^Talk 09:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's so great that we're on Wikipedia at the same time so often! :D I'll check out the sale (I love book sales, too, although I've never bought anything online before), although I'm rather harried at the moment with preparations for traveling. I did get The Eyre Affair just yesterday, which was an archetypical example of virtue being its own reward. I was looking for some fun reading for the trip, and I've sometimes found modern literature too taxing for me; so I found myself at the bookstore torn between Fforde's book and a really cute Gothic vampire romance novel. After wavering for about 20 minutes, I finally bought Fforde's book, with a twinge of regret and apprehension. Imagine my surprise and delight when I got the best of both worlds! :D As soon as I read the opening epigram from "Millon de Floss", I knew I was home. :) Keep you posted as I can and thanks again for the tip, con affetto, Willow 10:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fforde is perfect for traveling, unlike Thomas Pynchon (at least, in my opinion). I was pretty sure you would like The Eyre Affair. You might also like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke, if you haven't already read it. It is often described as Harry Potter for adults, but it is much better than that comparison implies. Clarke spent two decades writing the novel and it shows. It is a brilliantly crafted magical world. There are even little footnotes that reference the necessary "texts" for understanding the magic in the novel, and while the texts themselves are fictional, often the publishers are not - the names are drawn from 19th century publishing. It is a brilliant weaving together of our world and a magical world; one might think of it as a post-modern, fantasy Dickens. Weird, huh? I was entranced with it. Awadewit ^Talk 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... this lovely image: Image:Wickedmain.png appears to be copyrighted and used here under fair use. That means that per the guidelines it can't be used on user pages as you did to decorate yours. That's really a shame because it's nifty. You'll want to correct that before someone else notices it and removes it on you. Hope that helps. (if it's gone when you return that might be why) ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind alert, Lar! I think, however, that the image may not be only "fair use", but GFDL or even public domain. We're trying to clarify this; I hope that everyone will be patient with us! :) Willow 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, W girl! That wonderful image still sits at the archive of your Day, and it'd be sad to see it go... let me know if I can help you in any way with your queries there, k? Love, Phaedriel - 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Willow, do you have any book recommendations for me? Yesterday I fell and sprained my ankle and hit my head on the sidewalk rather hard (this kind of thing is very common with me, not to worry). Unfortunately, I do not have any fiction lying around to pass the time until I feel better. I wondered if you had any recommendations which might be appropriate. Rousseau is rather slow going right now. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Awadewit, I'm sorry to hear about your fall! I hope you're feeling better; get well soon! :) I've read Fforde about twice now on the bus, which was a ton of fun; your book recommendations for me are great! :)

I'm a little at a loss to recommend a book for you, though. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that, before Fforde, my own favorite book of the last year was The Reluctant Cinderella, which is a charming, sunny and insightful book for readers who can suspend their disbelief at key passages. :) But for you I should perhaps dig deeper and find something finer. What do you really like to read, when the hurly-burly of your thesis work is done?

I like all sorts of things - hard science fiction, imaginative children's literature (a la Philip Pullman) and good non-fiction (history of all kinds, political exposes). Awadewit | talk 13:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After lingering so long in the Age of Reason, perhaps an excursion Elsewhere and Elsewhen would be refreshing for you? The tap on the noggin might be a Sign. ;) But not into the Romantics, methinks; instead, how about wandering further afield? There's Poetry (Dylan Thomas?) or Music (Fado!) or Tragedy (The Bacchae?). I sometimes meditate on melancholy fragments of Sappho, and there are many wonderfully intense/funny medieval stories (Wife of Bath story? The Decameron?) and folk tales (The Girl with No Hands). I'll think some more, and send along other suggestions when I can get to a computer again. Please get well, I'm very worried, Willow 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions. I haven't read The Decameron in a while. It sounds perfect for right now. Awadewit | talk 13:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Awadewit! :)

I was in the middle of writing to you when my family whisked me away to dinner; my sister's commencement was today, although her hooding ceremony was yesterday. It was a lot of fun being all together and celebrating. My Latin got a good workout, too, since one of the student speeches was all in Latin, plus every second building is festooned with a Latin inscription. At the various receptions, I was furtively taking measurements of the more ritzy regalia so that I can reproduce it (or even improve upon it!) for my sis once I get home.

How are you feeling? I hope The Decameron is helping you recover and bringing you lots of laughter; "while you were out slouching around, I found a buyer for our old barrel..." ;D tua picola Fiammetta, Willow 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There's also The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, if one hundred tales aren't enough. They're more complicated and fun, because stories get told within stories within stories within stories...I remember one tale that began with a dwarf choking on a fishbone that went seven story-levels deep and was a wonderful delight. And then there was the impish fun of the porter and the three ladies... ;)

I didn't know that any speeches were given in Latin anymore. My undergraduate diploma is in Latin (it came with a translation), but no speeches were in Latin. I don't think my high school Latin would have sufficed. Which version of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights have you read? Do you recommend a particular edition? Awadewit | talk 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Dynamics Algorithms

Hi Willow! After editing Constraint algorithm I still had some extra energy and started work on Cell lists (somewhat complete) and Verlet list (barely a stub). If you're interested, have a look and tell me what you think! Cheers and thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 08:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro!

Cell lists is looking good, which I'm especially happy about, since I did some work on Ewald summation, which it really complements. In return, you might enjoy Flying ice cube, which Opabinia regalis (mainly) and I (a little) wrote with great merriment. :) Any suggestions/improvements there would be most welcome as well, Willow 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willow!

I read theFlying ice cube article and was just about to start a stub on the Berendsen thermostat when I realized that the Berendsen thermostat scales only the non-COM (center of mass) velocities. The thermostat usually runs over the particles twice: once computing the total COM velocity and the temperature of the system, the second time applying the correction to the velocities minus the COM-velocity. In any case, I would assume that this artefact should only appear when a sloppy Berendsen thermostat is used...

The cases I know of where the separation of temperatures/energies wrecks havoc is in systems such as non-rigid water where you can heat either the individual atoms or the molecules as a whole. If you don't heat both you end up with either very agitated but otherwise "slow" water molecules or really fast molecules with no internal motion...

In any case, I'll start the stub and try to get my hands on Berendsen's original paper to see if what we've always done is actually what Berendsen himself calls a Berendsen thermostat ;)

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 13:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting editorial I think you would like and E.B. update

Just listen to this: [2]. You might want to look at the links to Geoff Nunberg as well. I am still working on a sandbox version of the Encyclopedia Britannica for you. I know the article is already a featured article but I want to give it a good crack. Then you can have my efforts to use however you like for the main article. --Filll 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First crack at editing the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is found in the sandbox at [3].I know it is a bit late, but it contains a few comments and additional information, and some suggestions on grammar and punctuation. Some of my suggestions might even be good ideas; I am not sure. You can see some of my comments as well in the history of that sandbox article. I hope it is of some use to you. If you want me to, I can go through it a few more times but I think I have worked on it long enough and kept it from your editorial eyes too long already.--Filll 01:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filll,

It's so nice to hear from you again! :) Thanks for the NPR tip and your help on the EB. Unfortunately, I'm traveling for the next week, and probably won't be able to do any serious thinking/editing until I return. Please be patient, and hoping all's going well with you, Willow 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is up for peer review here. I was wondering if you had time to give it a look. I did what I could, but I feel that my review was not what it could have been, due to the recent knock on the head. The editors seem a tad resistant to my suggestions as well. I am tired and I don't want to respond to them anymore, but I feel that Shakespeare is such an important page that I have to do something. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Would you mind looking at Mary Martha Sherwood when you get back as well? It's no rush. I am really struggling with the article since there is so little material available; it is hard to make the article or the prose flow nicely. Awadewit | talk 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awadewit! :)

Thanks for your two notes! Your letters were among the things that I looked most forward to as I traveled home. How are you feeling? I hope that the knock on the head has healed OK? I've experienced several bad head injuries myself, which — as my family is fond of pointing out — accounts for a lot. ;)

I'll definitely look at William Shakespeare and Mary Martha Sherwood, although I'll admit to being nervous about the former; high-traffic, high-profile articles can be difficult to maintain. However, Bill's a dear old friend to whom I've often resorted in hours dark and hours light, so I'll try to make a contribution, as best I can.

Yes, I felt the same way about Shakespeare. I can only imagine that you don't want to get involved after finishing up evolution. Apparently there have been some edit wars over at Shakespeare - too bad. I feel, though, that reviewers should try not to become part of those - they should stay on the outside, as it were. I don't think I totally succeeded with Shakespeare, but it is a Platonic ideal. I can never really reach it. Awadewit | talk 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much time, so little to do — no, wait, reverse that, Willow 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

And all I left you were requests for tedious work! Oh no! Here is a wikicookie for the kind, thoughtful and interesting comments you always leave on my talk page. Here are some fun little web links - let me know if these are sorts of things you find amusing. Awadewit | talk 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cat Cam (You have scroll down the page to the mirror sites.)
• Octopus video

munch, munch...dahlicious — thanks, Awadewit! :D

I read about the CatCam and Mr. Lee when I was traveling, but it never occurred to me to look for a link (umm, duh, silly!). Isn't that a great idea? The octopus video was amazing, too; I'd heard of that sort of mimicry, but I've never seen it live. My old teacher taught me that the octopus is not actually mimicking its surroundings in photographic detail; rather, it is exploiting the foibles of its predators' eyes, of their image processing, to camoflage itself. It's somehow satisfying to think that the predators are participants in their own deception, don't you think? ;) My old teacher studied octopi and told me some amazing stories of how clever they are.

Evolution wasn't bad at all, thanks to Tim, Madeleine and the other excellent writers; I was thinking more of Albert Einstein and Wikipedia. It does concern me, though, that some Wikipedia articles read more like scientific review articles, and less like encyclopedia articles. It seems a pity to eschew vivid, layperson-centric writing, even if it's less compact and less exact, don't you think? Of course, I'm worse than most editors that way, despite my being haunted by the ghost of George Orwell and his Politics and the English Language. ;) Are you a fan? Idle musings and thanks again, Willow 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you. Thanks especially for the picture, I dissolved into uncontrollable giggling when I read the caption! :) TimVickers 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're very welcome! :) I thought you would like it, being a cat person and all. ;) I still need to update Theodor; hold on...ok! Sorry that our wings haven't been striking athwart as often as they used to. :( Somehow, I've diffused in other directions, which I'm enjoying, although I miss the comradery of the MCB WikiProject. But I've made a new friend, Awadewit, who's wonderful and from whom I'm learning all kinds of things worth knowing. Your and her spheres may not overlap much here in Wikipedia, but I can't recommend her highly enough, both for writing and insightful comments. I've also made friends with two sterling fellows from the Math WikiProject, Geometry guy and Cronholm, who may not venture much beyond mathematics but are well worth attending to. Hoping all's well with you and your kitty (Loki?), Willow 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loki and his three sisters are doing well. They are just starting to explore around the nest and practice their walking. They are rather ungraceful, but astoundingly endearing. TimVickers 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Why, thank you! :) I hope you enjoyed your time away from WP. If I can do anything for you, with my shiny new tools or otherwise, feel free to let me know! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip

Sorry about the quotes on Encyclopædia Britannica; I was trying to avoid them as thoroughly as possible. Although I am aware of the choice of the primary author, that is not the first variable in choosing the proper spelling style. Since the article deals with a British topic, it seems pointless to discuss the matter, although I agree with you %100 about the quotes and if I changed any, it was merely accidental. Thanks for restoring them. Reginmund 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]