User talk:Blythwood/Archives/2020/June

Toby Young and lockdownsceptics.org
Hi, I reverted your edit as it relied upon a site that Toby Young is involved with, so it may fail the requirements of WP:BLP. Autarch (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Realist
The word "realist" is used for a number of fonts on WP -- -- but doesn't seem to be common in the literature. Robert Bringhurst uses the term in his authoritative Elements of Typographic Style (7.2.8 "The Realist Letter", 2nd edition, ISBN 0881791326, p. 131-132), but only devotes two short paragraphs to it. Strangely, most index entries lead to pages which don't use the word at all. Kadavy's Design for Hackers only mentions it a couple of times. David Bergsland's self-published Practical Font Design only applies the word "realist" to Clarendon.

So it's not clear to me that the term is widely used, or for that matter where to find a WP:RS for which fonts are categorized as Realist and which aren't. --Macrakis (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. I've decided to remove it from those articles. Blythwood (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard William Pfaff
The creator of this page has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and I've been proposing many of their creations for CSD-G5. I left this one alone as your edits were "substantial edits", though I'd be happy to see it go too. Just thought I'd let you know. If you felt inclined to revert your edits it could then go as G5 too. That editor has left a trail of careless, badly-formatted, biographical articles under a number of different usernames. Pam D  08:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , gah, I thought their edits seemed familiar. Read the SPI page and it seems like nuts behaviour-if they just actually did some work preparing their articles before publishing them they could be a well-respected member of the community and not a terminally blacklisted outsider. So depressing reading all the things well-meaning people have said to them in the past. Blythwood (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the macOS Big Sur picture
The picture that was taken is not just infringing on the copyright of the wallpaper- it was taken directly from WWDC 2020, which infringes on the copyrights of WWDC itself, so I agree, it is definitely a copyright violation.

However, I have access to the developer beta, meaning that I can get pictures directly from macOS Big Sur. If I was to blank out the wallpaper, do you believe this would infringe on copyrights? You seem very knowledgable in this area so I thought I'd ask you. Thanks :) JBMagination (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's complicated because it's debatable whether UI elements are complicated enough designs to be copyrightable. So the simple option is to just upload a fair use image, like this one for Mojave-you could just copy out the same justifications. (The other reason to keep it simple and do what we've always done in the past, and upload a fair use screenshot, is that uploading images from the beta has legal issues-I am not a Mac developer but I understand to get access to one you agree to an NDA not to disclose anything Apple haven't publicly announced, so if you had the wrong app open in the screenshot you might be in trouble, I don't know.) Blythwood (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply on the Big Sur article talk page! I've seen your upload of the Software Update panel-sorry about this but this is what I was talking about before-because of the cogwheel logo and photograph of the sea the image is going beyond being a "simple" image (text and lines only) to being one with graphics that are copyrightable. So will have to tag that image for deletion. Blythwood (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright! I'll go delete it now... if I can do that, of course! JBMagination (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, already tagged it. Sorry about this once again. If you want to mention an image for discussion, it's fine to link to a picture on a website that's not Wikipedia-it's just that people assume that images on Wikimedia Commons are free so they copy off there, so people on there are very strict about copyright. If you want to upload fair use graphics (like to illustrate an app) that's fine, though! You just have to mark it as a fair-use copyrighted image. Blythwood (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, could I trouble you good folks to provide a link to the image file you're discussing? Thanks. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and the RfD of the "Apple ARM transition" article
Hi there. I noted your contribution to the discussion of WP:Articles for deletion/Apple's transition to ARM processors, which read as follows: "Keep as arguments for deletion are moribund now but I guess potentially warn article creator that we have WP:CRYSTAL for a reason and don't pull stunts like this in future-it can backfire." The RfD was subsequently closed as Keep, but that's not what I'm here to speak with you about. Rather, I'm troubled by what I see as a substantial misunderstanding of the WP:CRYSTAL policy, as reflected in most of the contributions in that RfD discussion, including yours. Most editors who commented on the RfD did so only after Apple made its official announcement about "Apple Silicon" at WWDC yesterday, and supported keeping the article only because that official announcement had by then been made. The reason I'm responding to you in particular is your characterization of my creation of the article as a "stunt" for which you felt I should be admonished and warned against repeating. I believe that characterization is uncalled for. &#x22EE; What I would like to invite you, and others who commented similarly, to consider is that the article I created would've been equally legitimate whether or not Apple had made an official announcement confirming its plans. At the time when I created it, the article was about a possible strategic business decision on Apple's part &mdash; not about the announcement per se. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a Wikipedia article on a topic that is hypothetical or prospective; what matters is whether the topic is notable (i.e. does anybody care about the topic?) and verifiable (i.e. is the topic citably discussed in reliable sources?). I would respectfully challenge you, or any other editor, to make a logical case as to why the article I created failed to satisfy either of these criteria. To put it another way, I contend that if Apple had not made an official announcement yesterday on the subject, the topic of the article would nevertheless still have been both notable and verifiable, and therefore the article would nevertheless still have qualified for inclusion in Wikipedia. ~ Thanks. (Feel free to reply here; I'll watch for updates.) — Jaydiem (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. I take my viewpoint from point 5 of that section. (WP:CRYSTAL is something I take particularly seriously because I was embarrassed on this point once years ago and won't let it happen to me again.) I don't have a problem with referring to rumours about future products in the Mac article, and we have a full article on the Apple electric car project (since it's been heavily reported in media and regulating filings). But creating an entire article on a product announcement that hasn't happened yet is too much-that's the sort of content that belongs in the Mac article as discussion about potential future scenarios. It's long been the norm-back when iPhones were numbered we didn't have articles on a hypothetical "iPhone 7" with rumours about what it could contain or whatever. Blythwood (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. It sounds to me like our point of difference here is that you're thinking of the now-announced transition as merely an incremental product announcement, comparable to the next-newer version of most Apple products that comes out on a roughly annual basis. I'm arguing that the scope of this transition is far greater than a mere product update. And Apple certainly seems to agree with me, considering the way that Apple CEO Tim Cook, during his WWDC keynote address, characterized the move as "a huge leap forward for the Mac" and a "big [change] to stay at the forefront of personal computing", at least as important as the three major transitions (PowerPC, OS X, and Intel) in the Mac's prior history [reference: "11:26 am" in this recap]. This is no mere next-year's-iPhone iteration; it's a major change in the way Apple does business. I would argue that, even from the perspective of a point in time several months ago, the subject of Apple moving the Mac platform from Intel to its own chips was at least as noteworthy as, and certainly more imminent than, anything that's going on with the company's autonomous-vehicle R&D. Quod erat demonstrandum. ~ Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hilary Stratton
Thank you for reviewing the article on Hilary Stratton that I added on 30/6/2020 Dorkinglad (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)