User talk:Jacobolus/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2007 Archives of user talk:jacobolus[edit]

Move request voting on Talk:Nike[edit]

FYI, started Jan 10. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Go board[edit]

Since you once edited this picture, I thought you may want to comment on the nomination.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Harvard[edit]

Is it hard to get accepted into Harvard, because I was determinig whether to go there. --Kolegegraduaet 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Harvard accepted about 9% of its most recent batch of applicants (according to the wiki page), and has the lowest acceptance rate and highest yield (percentage of accepted students who matriculate) of any Ivy League school. So objectively, it is fairly hard to get accepted. But it mostly depends on the student. --jacobolus (t) 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean specifically on the statement " it depends on the student". Do you mean his or her grade point average or his accomplishments during high school.--Kolegegraduaet 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some combination of the two. The Harvard admissions department doesn't really look for some particular set of achievements, but instead tries to fill up each incoming class with ~1650 of the most ambitious, most talented, most presumably influential students they can find. Students with a very wide variety of interests and goals get in, including artists, scientists, and the occasional child of a foreign president. Beyond some (pretty high, admittedly) threshold, it is my impression that they care more about students’ passionate interests than about their grade point average or test scores. --jacobolus (t) 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How is the Medical school at Harvard, compared to other universities around the nation.--Kolegegraduaet 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Glossy Ibis FPC[edit]

Hi Jacobolus - Per your suggestion, I went ahead and masked out the glossy ibis FP nom and blurred the background (and desaturated it a bit). Maybe it will meet your standard? Take another peak at the nomination if you like. Debivort 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Munsell-system.svg[edit]

The nomination was closed because it failed to receive the prerequisite 4 support votes for promotion, even after giving it an extra week. This clearly is a no consensus result. It was nominated for speedy deletion because it was an empty description page for an image on commons, not because it was corrupt. MER-C 11:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that clears things up. Thanks :) --jacobolus (t) 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Your merge proposals on white point and color balance need to be fixed if you want to make any progress. Use the mergeto and mergefrom templates, so that both discuss links will go to the same place, then follow that link and kick off the discussions with what you propose to do. I'll support it, most likely. Dicklyon 03:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW[edit]

Hey Jacob, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to perhaps license the tag ..[edit]

Generally if possible it would be nice if you can re-upload and relicense the image under a free license. As current policy stands we do not allow any usage of fair use outside of mainspace. If you will notice on my talk page I've also mistakenly violated these rules, and I will have to relicense my own image. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

random question[edit]

Hi, I noticed on your screenshot of TextMate in action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TextMate_screenshot.png) that you somehow got the airport menu bar icon to be orange. How did you do that? I'm curious. :)

Cosecant 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. magic ;). That is, I went and found the resource in the /System/Library/«I-don't-remember-what-comes-next» file, which I believe is a png. I opened it up in Photoshop, and I changed the color. I think you can probably find such a resource pre-made if you google for it. --jacobolus (t) 09:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to User_talk:TheChrisD#process_color[edit]

Huh? I didn't write that article - you got the wrong guy! -- TheChrisD 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

heh, I apparently mistook vandal-fighting for original content. silly me. --jacobolus (t) 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Color balance images speedily deleted[edit]

Yes, I noticed. I took the trouble to obtain permission for their use on Wikipedia, but apparently, that's not good enough for Wikipedia. There didn't seem to be a copyright tag for "licensed for use on Wikipedia," so I couldn't put a tag on them. Until this is resolved, I won't be going to the trouble of putting any more images on Wikipedia! Lovibond 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, "licensed for use on wikipedia" is not an acceptable license. Wikipedia only allows content that is freely copyable for other uses. Them's the rules. Dicklyon 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no such tag. All content added to Wikipedia needs to be either under a permissive license (or in the public domain), or to be usable under “fair use.” That is, since Wikipedia encourages its content to be reused and modified by anyone who likes, images need to allow republication, even commercial republication. However, it is possible to use a “viral” license like one of the CC ShareAlike licenses, or the GFDL, which requires that any derivative works be distributed under the same license. Wikipedia is not in the business of gaining exclusive usage rights, as such rights take away the freedom of other users to do what they like with its content. --jacobolus (t) 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

linked dates[edit]

Why remove all the date links? (respond on my talk page please) --jacobolus (t) 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The date issue relates to 'date preferences'. If you look at the top right of your screen you will see a setting for 'my preferences' (it is between 'my talk' and 'my contributions'). That leads you a page where you can set all sorts of preferences. It has a tab for 'Date and time' where you can choose to set the 'Date format' to 'May 9' or '9 May'. It will automatically convert dates in articles. Try setting the date preferences and see what happens.
Unfortunately the software that makes it happen was badly designed. The design error was to combine the date preference mechanism with the hyperlink mechanism. Thus you cannot make date preferences work without links. This has the unintended consequence of creating lots of links to full (month+day) dates. It also gives the false impression to editors that Wikipedia policy or convention is to link all date-like-words.
That is why many editors link partial dates (e.g. day only, month only, year only). Sad but true. Hope that helps explain it. Regards Lightmouse 14:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but it was my impression that it was recommended to link the first occurrence of significant years in an article. --jacobolus (t) 14:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have seen phrases like 'first occurrence' but that only applies where links are relevant to the context.
There is nothing wrong with linking anything relevant to the context. Even plain english words can be linked. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary so there is an assumption that readers know the language. Thus the plain english word 'green' would not usually be linked even on the first occurrence. However, a link to green might be relevant in an article about 'magenta' because it is a comparable term and therefore relevant to the context. So in a page where 'green' needs linking, you would link the first occurrence only.
The same applies to years. In the majority of cases they are just like plain english terms and readers are extremely unlikely to need additional articles about them. The year '1991' is unremarkable in almost all cases although it might be link-worthy in an article about palindromic years. That is why many editors assume that partial date links are added in error (for the reasons above), not essential context, and remove them as a matter of cleanup.
In summary, I think the 'first occurrence' test comes second to the 'relevant to the context' test. I won't object if you add links back. Do you have a particular article in mind?
PS I am watching this page so please answer here.
Lightmouse 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. It wasn't any particular page, I'd just noticed that you'd gone through and removed hundreds of date links from hundreds of articles. --jacobolus (t) 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free image (Image:Harvard shield-Business.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Harvard shield-Business.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. It is not orphaned. --jacobolus (t) 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Color Temperature[edit]

So you were editing the article for a while, Where do you think, we can add the temperature of color in it then?, by the way, as a painter I know that the temperature is not independent from its hue(it was explicitly stated in the sentences), but it doesn't mean that is not a color attribute which is, incidentally, what the introduction is discussing at the moment. We can get into bibliography and other sources as/or you can ask those who work with colors not only the computerized or projected ones, if not with pigments, that would be the houses that for centuries in Europe and America have produced the finest hues and shades and tones of them. In oils or watercolors, pastels, temperas, and then acrylics, i.e., Rembrandt oils, Old Holland, Gumbacher and other Companies. Also you might check with realistic artists, those with professional and academic background, and ask them for the attributes of colors. Evenly, Leonardo explain to us the essence of this attribute in many ways, first with his "esfumato" and throughout his manuscripts. I am willing to work on this one with you, whether to discuss it in the intro or in the body of the entry, we want to present temperature in it because is part of how our sense is susceptible to the the amount of hue in a resulting compound color. Also check the way you are uploading files, it is best if you only upload your own work, evenly if you are doing that for friends, it is not right with the license and evenly, if you were taking the time to release others people work under their name, I am asking you to refrain to do just that, other that the persons do not have hands or are handicap in a way that you upload the files in their presence and with the purpose of acting or motivated by empathy or/and charity or as personal favor. the fact remains, you are never sure if that photos were taking by your friends of by other friends of your friends. Believe me, there are a lot of professional photographers that are doing just fine and others amateur photographers that are uploading their own work. As an artist I am very observant about self-made work, it can be derivative but you need to work in it and be the modifier or primary modifier, to be the actor that deserves the right to upload the final production. Don't do it, it is not a good idea, at all. Well, I am sharing this with you and not with all the fellows that instantiate your Harvard campus experience of course. My best regards. ◙JMK◙-"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to start parsing what you read
Are you really from Harvard? Please, do not copy the same conversation all over again, to my talk page, either answer here or as I prefer at my talk page, I remind you of the 3R rule, WP:NPOV and of WP:OWN. I wrote in your talk page, because you are reverting without consensus my dear fellow, I asked you a question and you didn't answer, so I opted to revert your edition. Now you are communicating, but you are still acting by reverting without consensus, have you check my sources? Look there is nothing wrong to be wrong, it is recursively true. Now, is not the copyright that I worry about, is the copyleft, and not only for your or my friend, but for all of us who enjoy the Wikipedia, that includes yourself too. It seems that you are not understanding how to collaborate in here, and as anyone can read from your page, I am not the only one who thinks it is so; the only thing is that you just do not want to recognize it. So, I would ask you in other way this time: Do you want to collaborate to improve the HUE article? after you answer this question then we will continue, take your time and think. It is fine to disagree, the difficult thing is to work together in spite of disagreement. Remember you don't own the truth evenly about Hues. Greetings. I will wait for your answer. John Manuel-05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've answered at your talk page, and at talk:hue, where discussions about the article belong. I'd appreciate it if you avoided making a new heading in subsequent posts about this issue. Thanks. --jacobolus (t) 06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will not start headers, but I asked you above not to copy the thread in my talk page, and you did it. Well, where is the Golden rule in here. I would stop for two months, time after which, I will come back to open a sincere dialog with you about color theory and how we can improve the article. My intend is not picking a fight, this is alerting you that as editors we ought to have differences and also to exchange ideas, the fact that we are in disagreement, doesn't mean that we cannot work together, assume good faith. Therefore, I will left both, your talk page and the hue issue, to show that my aim is far from picking a fight or to overpower your views. Have the best experience in real life and in Wikipedia. Sincerely, read you in two months. John Manuel-14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I going to answer in my talk page for now on so we keep the conversation together and of course after this we are going to the hue talk page. Well, I am in a trip at the moment, enjoying life for awhile; it will take me sometime to get back to my home. In the mean time, I will reinspect my sources on color theory; by the way, I think that all of what you have proposed is very rational and indeed deserved all my respect. I think that finally we are communicating well and we can start to listen and learn from each other. We would work together for the Hue article or any other issues related to it. As we know light and color is a fascinating subject. Thank you. Sincerely, John Manuel-16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Need The Help of a Harvard Student[edit]

Hello Jacobolus,

I have partial scans of a extremely rare book I am, however missing a few pages from my scan, and the source who gave them to me can no longer help me. Harvard is one of the few places in the world that has a microfilm of what I'm looking for. The work is called Die Liebe und die Befehrung, roughly translated from German reads, "For the Love of Conversion". (That link is to the Commons of the page images I have.) The images I have go from page number 4, and skip to page number 6. I am missing page number 5. Further, the last page I have is page 33. I am unable to read German, but I have had native German speakers indicate that the text clearly continues at for one or more pages. The Author should be listed as J. Lichtenstein. I have searched through Harvard's electronic records (previously) and determined that they have the actual book. Here are the Hollis Search Results. I'll need the missing pages (or photocopies of the missing pages) scanned, so I can add them to Commons. The item is non cumulating, so ILL (Inter-Library Loan) requests for the item have been denied. I need the help of someone on campus. Any help you can give me would be truly wonderful. Please send comments to my Wikisource userpage Wikijeff, I'll notice it much faster! I look forward to hearing from you! You where recommended as someone who might be able to help me. If you can't help, please try to point me to someone who can. Thanks. —Wikijeff 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary colours[edit]

Hi, thanks for keeping on top of changes there; just curious about your comment:

no, autochrome didn't use 6 primaries

From the autochrome article it sounds as though the patent certainly describes six (possibly more)?

quota 17:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK if I butt in here? See the patent. I think the article needs to be amended and this patent cited. It says one layer of three (or optionally more) colors, I think, though I haven't read it all carefully yet. Dicklyon 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the patent! I'll add it to the Autochrome article, which also definitely needs an update. The patent clearly says "They are colored by means of colors also transparent in orange, green, and violet, or else in red, yellow, and blue, or even in any number of colors." -- so Primary Color needs a bit of clarification, too. I'll have a go... quota 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for tracking that down Dicklyon! It looks to me like the patent tries to be broad, but most (perhaps all) actual use of Autochrome was with three primaries, though the exact color could vary. But maybe I'm reading that wrong? --jacobolus (t) 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to Talk:Autochrome Lumière, where it will be more visible to interested parties. --jacobolus (t) 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quicksilver (software)[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Quicksilver (software), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispering 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous --jacobolus (t) 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Green[edit]

Thanks for helping out on this article. You've introduced several possibilities I hadn't thought of. I really hope we can get this up to GA to set a standard for other color articles. So many of them are just full of junk. Wrad 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion of non-notable color articles[edit]

There are at least a hundred non-notable color articles, including thistle (color), which have no relevant sourced information (the usual content is something like "thistle is the color of a thistle" along with an unsourced color swatch that might as well have been pulled from thin air), are currently stubs, and are never going to be more than stubs. Every once in a while someone mentions on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color that something should be done, but no one ever takes any action. Those that can be sourced should at best be merged into lists of swatches. The rest should IMO be deleted. I thought if I started tagging several of them with speedy delete tags, someone might either go find some useful sourced information to put at a merged-together article, or else we could build a consensus to delete them. But you seem to think that's not the best process. What do you recommend? Should I make a new "non-notable color" template, and stick it at the top of all of them, and then make a single discussion about canning them all? Is there some other better course of action? Putting each one separately on VfD would be an absurd waste of time/space/effort. --jacobolus (t) 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should bring all the non-notable colors up for one deletion discussion. I've seen that done before. But using speedy delete in this case isn't appropriate. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You think it's appropriate to put some "non-notable color" template on all of them? --jacobolus (t) 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd just start an AfD on one of the color articles then link all the other non-notable articles to that AfD. Just reuse the first AfD template on all the articles and list on the AfD all the other articles that are also under consideration. I'd also suggest limiting the AfD to 5 or 10 color articles; more than that will overwhelm people. --Alabamaboy 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example of how to list multiple articles in one AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates--Alabamaboy 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
So what do I do with those after the first 10? --jacobolus (t) 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Do another AfD. But see if the first one passes before starting a second.--Alabamaboy 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Colour circle[edit]

Hi Jacobolus - I've answered your comments in your recent copyedit within the same comment markers on Color circle, though I'll repeat them here for ease of explanation:

what's a "luminance complement"? when mixed how in the correct proportions?

A luminance complement is one used with additive - that is, emanative, colour, as opposed to the mormally accepted subtractive meaning of the term, as used with paint - I've changed the term in the article to "additive complement", however, to make it a little clearer. As to which correct proportions, that all depends on the two lights being mixed. Generally, however, when a light of sufficient brightness is added to its luminance complement, a neutral grey or white will be produced. This is not true when two lights which are not luminance complements are mixed, irrespective of the brightness of the two lights.

I'm not sure that subtractive color is inherent to the concept of a color wheel.

That's not the point - that it is primarily used with subtractive colour (and every colour wheel I've ever heard described deals with pigment, and is thus inherently subtractive) does not rule out the possibility of it being used with additive colour. The colour circle is NEVER EVER used with subtractive colour. As such, the two are distinct and different.

this rather depends on the specifics of the color wheel being used, doesn't it? A munsell hue wheel is going to look different than an RYB one.

Well, that's exactly my point. There is one specific colour circle, but there is not one specific colour wheel. A Munsell hue wheel, a Winsor and Newton oil colour wheel, a Faber aquarelle wheel, an individual artist's wheel - all will be different. A colour circle is the colour circle of normal human vision and has no variant forms, or at least not beyond the slight minor variations in colour vision from one individual to another. To all intents and purposes, there is only one colour circle.

Your fourth point, about a direct contradiction, was my fault - I accidentally typed "wheel" where I meant "circle" :)

Grutness...wha? 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, and I just moved them to the talk page there as well. Thanks for the answers. I'll respond on the color circle talk. :) --jacobolus (t) 07:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

American vs British spelling[edit]

Hi, please don't convert articles between American and British spelling as you did here unless it's for consistency, or the article is more relevant to a particular nationality (see WP:ENGVAR for details). Thanks for your contributions! -- intgr [talk] 09:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I was making it into a link, and I didn't even notice the spelling. --jacobolus (t) 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Euclid Image[edit]

Dear Jacobolus, I noticed you've uploaded several detail images from The School of Athens. Over the past year I've been building a huge philosophy site (online at http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/) that uses a number of images from the SOA (Plato, Parmenides, Aristotle, Pythagoras etc..) and was wondering if you had any more. I'm currently reworking many areas of the site and have a great deal more content to add online over the next few months. The other images I've found of the SOA online are not very large or very detailed. I was wondering if you took the photographs yourself and then edited them or if they were retrieved from an external source and so forth.

Anyway, I'd appreciate if you could write back, either here or via e-mail to dave@davemckay.co.uk

Thanks, David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.62.37 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just copied them all from a web page about the School of Athens; I think I uploaded all of the detail bits they had online, but I'm not completely positive. --jacobolus (t) 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, thanks for the quick response anyway.- david. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.62.37 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Munsell-system.svg[edit]

I was going to nominate your Munsell-system.svg image as a Featured Picture when I saw it had already been nominated - and was turned down. I was surprised they complained that one couldn't understand it at a glance - I DID understand it at a glance, and was so happy with its effectiveness I wanted to nominate it. Oh well, just wanted to let you know it's an excellent illustration and thanks. JaGa 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --jacobolus (t) 10:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about putting "lightness (or value)" or something like that but thought it looked klunky. I was confused when I first saw it - I had always referred to it as value in the past, and the word value was used more than lightness in the article, so I hoped it would make the nuance section more clear. JaGa 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LaTeX[edit]

Hi, I'm just very curious to know which program you used for the SVG version of LaTeX output.-PhDP (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on Mac OS and I'm struggling to find a good (possibly opensource) solution to convert PDF/EPS to SVG. --DarTar 12:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I left the following at PhDP's talk page:
I actually used pdflatex to make a pdf, and then used Adobe Illustrator to turn characters into outlines. This is undoubtedly possible with apps like Inkscape, etc., which are free, but I have more experience with Illustrator. :) --jacobolus (t) 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, J. Unfortunately, it looks like Inkscape does not support PDF import, so Adobe software seems the only alternative :( --DarTar 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:David_Brooks.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:David_Brooks.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I uploaded that in 2005, before the Wikipedia policies were quite so draconian w.r.t. fair use images. --jacobolus (t) 08:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

I like most of U.S. oldies, especially Rhythm and blues ones as they gave birth to Rock'n'roll -- my religion. (As a matter of fact, I'm the guy you were disputing on K in CMYK all the time.)--SunnySideOfStreet (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize. You've gotten me to dive into books about the history of color printing, when I should be writing code. :) This fellow Jacob Cristoph Le Blon who was the first to make color mezzotints (he's oddly missing from wikipedia but sources, e.g. [1], abound) is rather interesting. I still can't figure out exactly when the abbreviation “CMYK” was first used. --jacobolus (t) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's really lol, as today I supposed to be writing documentation on the image format library I had programmed out. :) --SunnySideOfStreet (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

51-star US flag?[edit]

Hi Jacobolus! I'm trying to track down the source you used to create Image:US flag 51 stars.svg - has the Army Institute of Heraldry published the design somewhere? It would be a good citation to add to Flag of the United States. Thanks, --ScottMainwaring (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC) (class of '85, btw)

A/S/L[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A/S/L, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. -- ALLSTARecho 09:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. --jacobolus (t) 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)