I hope you had a great day at the office. I am sorry I had to run but the last bus was leaving. Any time you feel like contacting me, you know where to find me, right?
Best wishes, 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (PS I cannot believe that you remembered Matilda's name, while I totally... well, you know.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.25.156.172 (talk)
Hello, hello, hello! :) I was so delighted to see you, and touched that you almost missed your bus so that we could say hello and goodbye and "I missed you" to each other.
I just wrote you a letter on Facebook, because I hadn't checked this account beforehand. Let's catch up, but perhaps a bit more privately? ;) Willow (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pittsburgh WP10 party
Hey! This is just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration in Pittsburgh tomorrow. The meeting time has been moved up to 4:00 so that we can gather before the game starts and stake out places, and it may be a good idea to get there even sooner, if you can. Pittsburgh bars are likely to be a little crazy and very crowded. See you there!--ragesoss (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm planning on arriving around 3:30pm, but I have some family errands to run, so I might be late... Looking forward to the party! I might dress up, since I'm going to a dance afterwards. :) Willow (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know if you are still wiki-hibernating? I have been trying to make logarithm more accessible etc. and am planning to nominate it for FA sometime soon. I would appreciate an uninvolved, yet committed editor's comments prior to that. The PR did not give much feedback. Best, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TPS here. If you are willing to invest some time, the book Gamma contains a wonderful historical description of the logarithm in its first chapter. I lent my copy out but it seems to be around in various library systems. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's so heartening to hear from you both. :) I'm still engrossed in my job search, alas. But I have a few days free this week between job fairs, and IMO there's no math article more important on Wikipedia than Logarithm. I'll do the best that I can to help. I also happen to own Havil's book; now I have a good reason to read it! ;) Willow (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it really is a gem. I'm not embarrassed to say that I struggled with it, but the book is quite unique in that it presents a generalist treatment of a rarefied subject without a hint of compromise. I'm glad to hear from you as well! Protonk (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, my impression is that Logarithm is not ready to be a Featured Article. There are several things that might be improved, but I've begun with trying to make it more accessible to lay-people. I put a rudimentary and incomplete draft of a more accessible lead in this sandbox; does it seem like it might be an improvement? We should get other input, particularly from lay-people; I'll ask around. I'll be busy today, though. Willow (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm very glad that you're taking the fluctuation-dissipation theorem under your wing. :) I dashed it off in 2007, as part of my push to improve the equipartition theorem and the virial theorem. I meant it as a placeholder article that I would get back to, but I never did; and it's lain fallow for far too long.
The chief failing of the present article, IMO, is that it's far too technical. That's totally my fault, since my original article focused so heavily on the two derivations (classical and quantum). I know better now, but it would take significant time and work to make the article more accessible for lay-readers. If you wanted to work on that, I'd be glad to review your work and make suggestions. There's been a, umm, vigorous discussion of the need for that on the discussion page of WP:MTAA. You may find other people there and at the Physics WikiProject willing to help you make the article accessible. From my experience with equipartition theorem and the problem of Apollonius, I can recommend Geometry guy as a gifted and sympathetic reviewer/re-writer, but he may be busy. A friendly, intelligent lay-reviewer can also be a tremendous boon.
I remember you expressed a special love for Einstein's style of writing, so maybe it's a disappointment for you that the translation has been scooped up like that. I felt I should at least notify you.
It was a challenging job; lots of very convoluted sentences. I wonder whether for scientific papers writing like that was the usual style (in the german language), around that time. Cleonis | Talk23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
