User talk:James Arboghast/Archive02

Typography

Somebody misunderstood my methods

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Wikipedia articles are not collections of photographs, and articles should not have photographs with no encyclopedic content to go with them. Please remove these images from the article, as they have nothing to do with typography, other than in how they have words in them. You seem to be an expert on this subject, so please add encyclopedic content to the article instead of irrelevant, unhelpful images. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The pictures I am adding are samples of typography. Typography is a special case within the encyclopedia. These samples are not "irrelevant, unhelpful images". Relax. I will be adding written content to go with the samples. In the meantime pease be patient, the pictures of type in use are a practical way of illustrating what typography is. Arbo 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"...they have nothing to do with typography..." That is plainly untrue, these are pictures of typography. Please relax. Arbo 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is to be learned about typography from the Kelloggs logo, an NYC billboard, and a screen capture of Mac OS X. I understand that typography is used in logos, billboards, and computers, but the images are everywhere and, as they stand, add nothing to the article. I hardly feel that six company logos, or a beer advertisement, or the OS X desktop belong in this article. Besides, the article layout is broken. I would suggest that you add images after sections have written, not before. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 20:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You may find the German, French, Spanish, and Japanese versions of this article interesting. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check those out :-) Arbo 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish typography article is excellent —what an encyclopedic article on typography should be. Samples in the Spanish one are excellent. Thankyou for showing me that :-) How can I get a translation of the text in english? That would speed up wikifying the english version a great deal. Arbo 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am adding written content now. Arbo 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I hardly feel that six company logos, or a beer advertisement, or the OS X desktop belong in this article."

That's just your view. From the Typographic POV, "type is everywhere". I'll reduce the number of logos. Arbo 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to go offline now. Sorry I can't add written content 24 hours a day. If somebody can translate the text from the Spanish typografi article, and if it is okay to use some of that in the English version—yes please—give me a hand and the English version will happen much quicker. Meanwhile I am hurriedly throwing together some original writing on this much misunderstood subject. Arbo 22:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And now I find out you, Bryan, are you're a middle school student. So it is That makes it difficult to take your objections seriously. at all given your age. I'm 42 y.o, a professional typographer & typeface designer who is also a notable commentator on the subject at typophile.com, and you're telling me the images I'm adding are "...irrelevant, unhelpful..." and have "...nothing to do with typography, other than in how they have words in them." They've got type and fonts in them too, if you look closely you'll see. "I hardly feel that six company logos, or a beer advertisement, or the OS X desktop belong in this article." they do belong. , and i If you don't understand why now, maybeyou will one day. From the perspective of a typographer typography professional your view of typography is very, very limited.

Please take into account your age and lack of expert knowledge on typography. Instead of showing knee-jerk reactions and contempt for expertise, try to be more diplomatic: instead of baulking at what I do, assuming you know better and telling me to remove content which is actually relevant, Please don't assume bad faith. It would help if you asked what my intent is first. Arbo 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

typography page

Lots of people give up on wikipedia, and often for good reason; Lord knows it's a mess. Those who announce the decision loudly, as if it were of staggering import and should shake the community to its marrow, come across as self-important buffoons - to me, at least. Hence my snide and unnecessary retort. - 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. It just was bothering me how few typefaces we had articles on. —Chowbok 18:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Caslon sample

What do you mean by "make it load faster"? A person doesn't have to download the entire file when they view an image. The server creates a file of that resolution when you define the resolution (eg: 300px). Once the server has done it once, it doesn't have to do it again. ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 16:21

I thought that was how it worked---thanks for clarifying how the server operates. At one point my browser was downloading the full hi res file when viewing the thumb. Nevermind, it was probably my Internet Explorer in error. Arbo 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it did that for a while a couple months ago when the image servers were having problems rendering smaller versions, but they fixed that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 16:35

For example, the current image is at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Caslon_sample_779x1024.png/300px-Caslon_sample_779x1024.png — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 16:21

Understood. I'm an experienced graphic designer and publisher. Change the caslon sample back to your featured pic. Cheers Arbo 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, PNGs are much harder for the servers to manipulate than JPGs, so you should only use them when they are required (for diagrams/vector drawings). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 16:21

Fine, no problem. Arbo 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the entire featured picture process, see WP:FPC, and for a list of featured pictures, see WP:FP. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 16:33

You asked if I knew how to do a merge...

The short answer is; not yet.

The longer answer is; I'd like to learn, but at the moment my internet access is spotty from home, and I don't feel right using the internet at work to "play" (do stuff they're not paying me to do) except on breaks and the rare occasion that I don't have any work to do and no one else needs any help. So if you wait for me to learn, it might take a while.

So I suppose the correct answer is no. ONUnicorn 20:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will read the wiki help on doing a merge soon and take a shot at merging Printing with Printing Press. Thanks for your input

BTW, I saw the proposition (on Printing or Printing Press talk page) to vote for Johanne Gutenburg to be made into a featured article, followed the link, searched the page of candidate articles, searched the page of previous candidates and deleted candidates, but found no sign of Gutenburg. I guess the motion didn't get enough votes.

I don't think the Gutenburg article is really a good candidate for featured status. I'm building up the Typography article (it will take the rest of this year at least) to make it run rings around the German and Spanish Wikipedia Typography articles. If and when I get Typography into decent shape I will put it up for featured status. Typography as a whole is more likely to get votes I think.

Arbo 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And thanks again

Yum! —Chowbok 00:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Links in Typography article not link spam

The following are excerpts from a dispute between myself and User:Pollinator. The excerpts by themselves are out of context, painting a reduced, selective picture, leaving out all my rationale, reasonable questions and arguments, my thanks and apologies to Pollinator and retractions—leaving mostly only my angry and "abusive" bits. The complete thread is archived on Pollinator's talk page User talk:Pollinator/Archive 2.

To explain—I was impolite, aggressive and abrasive to begin with; I apologised and refactored my talk, but this administrator's interpretation and handling of linkspam seems to have run off the rails. The Wiki policy he refers to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam..." does not address the issue I raised—"a definition of "linkspam", please?" He never did explain his inconsistent actions (removing certain external links from typography but not removing the same external links from other, related articles. All his talk pages are dotted with complaints from other editors about his unfair removal of apparently innocent external links from articles.
Arbo 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

reposted from User talk:Pollinator

Dear Sir,

the links you recently removed from the Typography article are not link spam, viz—

(list follows)

Please stop indiscriminantly removing external links from Typography and its related articles ad hoc without first clicking the links to ascertain what kind of sites they lead to. If you think a site may be commercial but you're not sure, please ask me (I'm an accomplished typographer and type designer with substantial knowledge of the industry) Your rude and inconsiderate actions have created needless extra work for me. I'm building up Typography from almost nothing into a first rate Wikipedia article, and you come along and mess it up. It is pissing me off. Kindly wake up to yourself.

Thankyou Arbo 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wide awake, Arbo. There are people making a lot of money off Wikipedia. If the link is to a page that goes to a site that is selling something, the link is going to be removed. Period. I checked every site that I removed.

Unfortunately that leads to the loss of some good material. But Wikipedia is all about being FREE. It is not a medium for advertising. If you are not happy, argue your point to change the policy. Placing commercial links back on the page will be treated as vandalism. Pollinator 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

reposted 6-13-06 from User talk:Pollinator

Well? You haven't answered any of my questions. Your definition of linkspam is dubious and does not tally with the content of a vast number of Wikipedia articles. Your ability to interpret Your interpretation of what is linkspam at what is not linkspam is inconsistent. I can tell from reading all the other complaints you've recieved about the external links you have removed, from numerous articles, that are not really linkspam.

I can see there is no point trying to discuss the issue with you tho, because you're not talking, not responding. Disappointing.

Take care, Arbo 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I DID try to discuss it with you, also offered you a solution, but you responded angrily with a personal attack. At that point the discussion was over. In fact it could be seen as evidence that you were indeed spamming - that your pocketbook was affected. You were fortunate that you weren't blocked - if you had not had a record of good edits you would have been. If you want to be a good WikiCitizen, I'm ready for discussion anytime. Pollinator 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Also see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

---

I refactored the above by striking out the things I shouldn't have said in the first place.

Arbo 07:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)