User talk:Sadi Carnot

I clear my talk page semi-weekly basis; after I respond of course.

Images

Some of the images you created in MS Word would probably be better in vector format. Could you perhaps upload them as SVGs? // Liftarn

I use an HP (officejet d135) Image Editor. The file tags I have available are:

• Coverpage file (*.cvr)
• TIFF file (*.tif)
• Windows Bitmap (*.bmp)
• DCX file (*.dcx)
• PCX file (*pcx)
• JPEG file (*.jpg)
• GIF file (*.gif)
• Flash file (*.fpx)

Are any of these in vector format? --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell they are all bitmap formats. Too bad. They looked like they may have been drawn with a vector editor. // Liftarn

What would be a good but inexpensive vector editor to buy? --Sadi Carnot 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

EVE 3.56 is a free vector graphics editor for Windows. It's free, and is only 161K in size. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check into that. --Sadi Carnot 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Boltzmann's equation"

Changed Boltzmann's equation to point to Boltzmann equation, not Boltzmann's entropy formula. Anything else would be madness. Jheald 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds reasonable. Also, would you mind commenting here: Template talk:Thermodynamics timeline context. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal space

Thanks for your swift addition of references to Personal space. I'm not a fan of current Wikipedia policies about providing references, but given that the Wikivigilantes seem intent on enforcing them I like to see articles I like protected. I'll see if I can find some more recent material that would be appropriate to the article. John FitzGerald 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm pretty sure I added the two main references, although I still need to full read Hediger's book. Certainly add more references if you find them. Later: --Sadi Carnot 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Averageness

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Sadi Carnot! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule flickr\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this was a bot-error; the images linked to are already in the commons. --Sadi Carnot 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Rating sites

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Sadi Carnot! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule flickr\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another bot error, see: Talk:Averageness. I will note this on the bot owner's user page. --Sadi Carnot 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot

If the images are already in Commons, then why are you trying to link to them on Flickr? Shadow1 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the averageness article, which is based on image morphing, you will note that Francis Galton was the first to blend images together. Many have since made similar images, thus finding that the most averaged image, i.e. the one with the most composite photos, is the most attractive. Now the images that are in the Wikipedia attractiveness article were made by photographer Pierre Tourigny and donated to Wikipedia. On his Flickr page he describes how he made the composite images, i.e. what particular image software he used and so forth. Hence, to properly explain how the images were made I have to site his verbal statement of this, which is on Flickr. I’m not familiar with whatever other Flikr linking issues you’ve had in the past, but this particular issue has been discussed on Talk:Averageness. My point is that yes bots that clean up random spam is good; but bots that over-clean, such that they are repetitively reverting real editor efforts, are not as good. I also note that others are complaining about your bot on your talk page. Thus, maybe you can improve your bot in this area in the future. Thank you. --Sadi Carnot 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Youthfulness

Great work on the youthfulness article! I've submitted it to "Did You Know?" as one of the best new articles of the last several days, and if it passes it will show up on the main page in the Did You Know? section in the next few days. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it’s not much, there’s actually a lot more that goes into the concept of "youthfulness", dozens of studies and theories, but I only have time presently to just get the basics going. The three articles, youthfulness, averageness, and symmetry, are kind of a set in relation to physical attractiveness. Talk later. --Sadi Carnot 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of discoveries in chemistry

Since you seem to like timelines, I thought you might be interested in this new article. :-) Itub 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check into it. --Sadi Carnot 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Goethe

As far as I can see, you don't need admin intervention to reverse the page move, you can do it simply by being BOLD. All the same, I should wait a few more days to let people comment before you actually do it: seven days discussion would seem to be a minimum for an article such as this one. If you have any problems, drop me a message (I probably won't be on Wikipedia this weekend, which gives you some delay). Also, please don't forget to do the incoming redirects (10–15 at a quick look), not that you would foget of course ;) Cheers, and keep up the good work! Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just do it myself then. I just thought a page move to a redirect could only be done with sysop tools so that the related links stay true? Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Poor editing" is in the eye of the beholder

You don't agree with my edits of Vibraimage. I think you can see that I don't agree with many of your contributions to the article, either. There are a lot of ways we could proceed to work together -- find compromises, or some common denominator. Calling each other's contributions "poor edits" or "overzealous" is not a good way to start. Would you like to start again?

I don't doubt that you are read in Chemistry, in Gottman, in Eckman. Maybe you have even read the Nicomachean Ethics. Fantastic. I like books, too. But Wikipedia is not a place to deliver a novel synthesis of one's learning. That's "Original Research". If you can find "Reliable Sources" that establish the notability of "Vibraimage", and discuss its theoretical underpinnings, that's one thing. Without that, a discussion of Gottman, of Eckman's work, of 1/45th of a second microexpressions belongs elsewhere. (May I recommend the articles for John Gottman, Paul Eckman and microexpressions?)

Perhaps there should be a "Researchipedia", so that people can share and develop their theories without the requirement for institutional or popular approval. I think that could be interesting, albeit noisy. The principles of Wikipedia, however, make it clear that it is not such a place.

I'm sorry that being reverted hurt your feelings. Seriously. I've been there myself. But reversion is not personal (at least not in this case), and it's part and parcel of a collaborative editing environment. It's all version-controlled, anyway, so mistakes can be reversed. Given a little time and care, they will be.

If you want to discuss the edits in more depth, I'd be happy to. Perhaps I could come to see more of your point of view. I hope, in turn, that you will come to see mine. -- Shunpiker 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)