User talk:James Arboghast

- - -> please click here to leave me a message. <- - - Please allow up to 2 days for replies.


 * Archive 1:
 * Archive 2:
 * Archive 3:

Classical architecture photo assignment desk
WP needs more photography to illustrate surviving classical buildings of antiquity Arbo 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * strong sunlight accentuates sculptural detail, whenever possible please.
 * avoid wide angle lenses (short focal length), they distort.
 * axonometric views are best obtained with a normal or portrait focal length some distance from the corner of a building
 * shoot small details with telephoto lenses
 * true optical sharpness can only be obtained with the camera held absolutely still. For most lighting conditions this means a tripod and the smallest lens apertures. Stopping down to small apertures usually entails long shutter speeds.
 * hand-held shots can be made fairly sharp by using a shutter speed the reciprocal of the lens' focal length, e.g: for a 35mm format camera with a 100mm lens a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second will largely compensate for the hand-held sway. For a 250 mm lens you'd use 1/250th of a second



Temple to Portunus &mdash; so-called "Fortuna Virilis"


The tetrastyle pseudoperipteral ''"Temple to Fortuna Virilis in the Forum Boarium, known as 'Fortunu Virilis' is dedicated to Portunus the tutelar divinity of the port on the nearby Tiber." &mdash; Henri Stierlin''

A Henri Stierlin photo in Greece: From Mycenae to the Parthenon, Henri Stierlin, TASCHEN, 2004, shows the building free from obstructions on all sides, but I have no date for that pic. Contemporary www pics show dense folige obstructing the ground on either side, visible in Ryan's photo.

From examining numerous photos:
 * Building is largely intact despite fire damage.
 * Accessable from the front & rear.
 * Front & rear tympanae intact and very complete, minus any sculpture that may have once occupied the pediments.
 * A protective barrier surrounds it&mdash;very close to the temple itself, so you can get quite close to snap details.

Pics required From the front:
 * A straight-on view of the facade from some distance (approx. 10 - 20 ft); cars are able to park in front of it; shoot with normal to portrait focal length. Get as high up as possible to avoid keystone distortion by tiliting off horizontal plane.
 * Axonometric views from both corners please, like the existing photo but if possible from further away shooting with normal to portrait lens.
 * Ionic column bases damaged but still photographable, detail shots please.
 * Entablature and Ionic capitals in excellent condition, detail shots.
 * Complete row of dentils, detail shots.
 * Steps in great condition, straight-on and axonometric views from both corners please.

From the rear: Arbo 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Engaged columns in rear wall of the cella, axonometric and straight-on views of columns please.
 * Ionic fluting on inner pair of columns in excellent condition, one shaft of nearly complete fluting, detail shots of fluting please.
 * half of brick veneer facing has crumbled off, remaining veneer is photographable.

Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine
Apparently it is possible to get much closer to this structure than the vantage point of the current photo. I rewrote the descriptive text of this article based the plan drawing and axonometric reconstruction in the TASCHEN book The Roman Empire by Henri Stierlin. Arbo 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Position camera at left corner for axonometric view&mdash;in front of the dense clump of green bushes&mdash;between the bushes and the basilica.
 * Tilt camera up slightly to capture the octagonal coffers on the arch ceilings of the cross vaults. Try to get the arcade running thru the center of the vaults at ground level in the same shot.
 * The deep vaults cast a shadow over most of the coffers for most of the day. There may be only a narrow time frame when a portion of the coffers are lit by full sunlight.

Temple of Saturn
The surviving freize is decorated with widely letter-spaced Roman inscriptional capitals, proof positive for typographers and lettering artists that the Romans were seriously into letterspacing on their public buildings Arbo 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Front-on telephoto views please, of the complete inscription and portions
 * Individual letters or as close-up as equipment allows

the Maison Carrée at Nimes


Hexastyle pseudoperipteral Roman temple on high podium reached by steps. A most classical form of Vitruvian design in a remarkable state of preservation. "Tuscan Corinthian" columns, band of very classical sculpted ornamentation runs around the frieze, very refined dentils, petrified drips everywhere.

Arbo 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Existing WP pics by User:ChrisO (2 of them) are a great start, but much higher resolution shots are desirable, from all sides, front-on and axonometric views required
 * Detail pics of column bases, fluting, capitals, entablature, decorated frieze and engaged columns embedded along the walls of the cella. These shots will require a tripod, telephoto lens(es) and long shutter speeds at small apertures.

Reconstruction drawings, paintings and models
WP needs many more of these, preferably of much higher quality and larger/high resolution too. So get out those art and history books, old encyclopedias and yearbooks, scan artwork in the public domain and upload it. Look for color guauche and illustrations&mdash;"artist's conception" style, especially reconstructions of Greek polychromy; Correct, Greek temples in antiquity were painted in lively colors, mostly the capitals, entablature and adorning sculpture, yet few of the articles on classical Greek architecture touch on this aspect. Arbo 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 Talk goes here.

Our recent exchange on Sans-serif
Hi, I posted a comment on Talk:Sans-serif about the "optically" thing. I'd like to hear your reasoning if you've got a sec. :) SFT | Talk 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Typography
I am sorry if I changed the article into the "wrong" spelling. I noticed that it used mixed BE/AE spellings, and the section I was reading used BE, so I changed the entire article to BE. I don't mind if it's BE or AE, but it should be unified. Kind regards, —  Tirk·ﬂ  “…” 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Specimen by William Caslon from Cyclopaedia 1728 Vol 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Specimen by William Caslon from Cyclopaedia 1728 Vol 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

spam?
What spam are you talking about? Is a request for new material to be added to an article against WP regulations now? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the talk page here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caslon&curid=7277080&diff=371737426&oldid=371425736


 * You said, and I quote, "How does Caslon FS rate?"
 * That didn't sound like a of request for new material to be added. It looked like spam to me.
 * The Fontspring Caslon, IMO, is not a sufficiently significant rendition of Caslon's English roman type to justify adding it to the article


 * When a Wikipedian wants new material added to an article, it's up to that user to add that material, then wait for other editors to challenge it.


 * Arbo talk 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup
Hi there. Just inviting you to the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)

Arrighi typeface picture source
Hello,

You have a picture uploaded of some print by Arrighi. Could you tell me where it comes from? It doesn't seem to be in La Operina, for example, as that is all much more ornate. Thanks. Anweald (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a very common sample of Arrighi's italic type that can be found in dozens of illustrated books on type. For instance, The History and Technique of Lettering by Alexander Nesbitt. Arbo talk 09:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

February Melbourne Meetup
Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about your Jenson Roman Type image
I'm wondering about the copyright of the image.

Did you scan it from an original, so it is your image to post and grant permission to use? I'm sort of assuming you did not, because you are listed as uploader only, and it does not say the source is "own work"

But I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

If you scanned it from a reproduction (e.g., someone else's image), do you happen to know if the printed reproduction was published before or after 1923?

I'm trying to get a sense of the copyright of the image, because I'd like to use it in a project. I know the piece itself is in the public domain, but whether or not a "faithful image" of the piece is in the public domain is rather murky. :-(

I'm a University professor who teaches type. I'm on sabbatical and doing research. I have a project due in 6 weeks and am finding it difficult to work with rare book rooms in such a short time span, so am now turning to the online community of type enthusiasts to try and find some examples of historic type!

Thank you for any insight you can give me on this, I greatly appreciate it. Laura Franz (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Laura, sorry about the delay answering this one. The image of Nicolas Jenson's Roman type is in the public domain, and therefor it is free of any copyright restrictions. It can be found in many printed books on type and typography, and each printed reproduction looks essentially the same as the next. And since the type design is in the public domain, there is not copyright issue. I don't know how faithful the image I scanned is. To determine that I guess you would have to go to Italy to the museum or library or whatever institution where the original sample is held. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Arbo talk 09:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Trajan inscription duotone.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Trajan inscription duotone.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Trajan inscription duotone.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Trajan inscription duotone.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert on List of type designers
Would you care to explain how unreferenced names, names that link to football players, and names where the only references are to the person's or person's company's webpage are notable for inclusion in List of type designers? This list includes, in addition the the previously mentioned multiple football players, an irish politician, an ice hockey player, a horror-punk band, and a couple first-time amateur font creators. Lists like this should, in general, only include people who would be notable enough for their own article. --Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 15:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about football players, ice hockey players or horror-punk bands being in the article on typeface designers. I reverted your edit because removing from that article everybody who has no WP page about them as an individual type designer strikes me as ridiculous, tyrannical, uninformed, and just plain wrong.


 * If you want to remove names of persons who are not typeface designers at all but are in fact hockey players or musicians, then by all means do so. I have no objections to that.

PAGE''' ]] ) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally used to be listed in that article but somebody removed my name and I don't know why. Not that it bothers me much. But to challenge your dubious criteria for whose name should be in that list article, take me for example. I am a typeface designer, a professional typeface designer what's more, and this fact is adequately documented by googling my name---the first hit you get is my publisher Myfonts.com. The page on their website describing me, and the linked pages describing my typefaces, are adequate proof that I am an established typeface designer with 19 fonts to my name. Is that enough notability for you? I have released more fonts onto the retail market than Stephen Banham, who is the only Australian type designer in the list with a WP article about him. Your stipulation "Lists like this should, in general, only include people who would be notable enough for their own article." is a defacto standard justification from a person (yes you) who I supposed refuses to do the work of googling to establish who in the field is notable and who is not. No typeface designer in this world has to have their own WP article about them to qualify. If that's your standard for inclusion then I imagine you spend way too much time at WP and need to get out more and take note of what else there is in this world. Tip: the world does not consist of Wikipedia alone. You are out of your depth on the subject of typeface designers. Arbo (talk)
 * The world does not consist of Wikipedia alone, but Wikipedia DOES. The standard is not proof that a typeface designer exists, but proof that they are Notable. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, inclusions on the list must at least have an article about them or have a link to a reliable source or article that establishes that they both: belong on the list (are a type designer) AND are notable. To give the benefit of the doubt, I will only remove entries that don't link to EITHER an existing article (as long as the article isn't about an unrelated person with the same name) or a source (any source at all), although that will leave many entries on the list where notability isn't established. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * . Hi, . Actually the onus is on you to prove they are not notable and that no article could ever be written about them. For instance, Arbo qualifies for an article, so if his name were on a list, then the onus would be on you to prove that he is not notable before removing him from the list. Cheers!  11:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Typographic ligature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minuscules. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Arachnophobia (film) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=666072288 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F666072288%7CArachnophobia (film)%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * If you can tell me in plain English please what the problem is, and again --- in plain English --- what options exist for fixing the problem, maybe I could give a meaningful response to your bot post. So I removed a statement from Arachnophobia that was false, and that invalidated a reference. Oh gee whiz. So that reference and the statement connected to it are no longer in the article ***because they were pure dog shit***. Okay? I made an edit that improved the quality of the encyclopedia by removing some dog shit. That's what Wikipedians are generally supposed to do. Is that okay? If it's not okay, too bad. I don't care what your bot posted about it here --- your bot's opinion does not make any sense, so I'm ignoring it. If you want to alert Wikipedians to errors they make, the least you could do is show up and talk to me in person. Sending your bot with its cold, automated, inhuman message does nothing to impress me. It only turns me off and I will block your bot from appearing on my user page and user talk page as soon as practicable. If you wanna talk to me --- talk to me, don't send your bot. Arbo (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Rangie doors
Is it worth noting that the door change was part of a larger body change, and that the first 1970s two doors (vertical handle) weren't the same as the 1980s "four door with only two doors fitted" bodies? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about Range Rovers to fathom what you're sying. I only edited the lead paragraph of that article for clarity of word-smithing.Arbo (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Iowan Old Style
Thanks for creating the example text set in Iowan Old Style! I discovered it when it became an OS X system font, and there's enough information on it available that I decided to write an article on it, which includes your picture in a gallery. Hope you like it. Blythwood (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

James Arboghast told me to fuck off
Unpleased by my edit Mr. James crudely noted his reason for reverting. He included a personal slur against me; misspelling and incivility. He said, "because it makes no sense to you Kmccook indicartes your lack of perceptiveness and intelligence. Kindly cease vandalising this thing and fuck off." I found this action very unhelpful.Kmccook (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh deary me no, I made a typo entry error---that's not a misspelling. I accept your complaint about my incivility and I apologize to you for it, if that makes a difference. But, you're complaining about a typo entry error sounds altogether desperate. So sorry. It won't happen again Arbo (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh deary you, yes, apologies are appreciated. Your tone is often so needlessly hurtful and yes, being told to "fuckoff" by you is the sort of bullying that discourages new editors. So could you lighten up and not go down for the count on everything that annoys you here? We're trying to share information, not belittle each other.Kmccook (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. If you can contain your grievances to 1 grievance per reply, we can get along just fine. Yet here you are making a second complaint about Weeeeeee! Arbo (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on History of Western typography. ''I should add that it is not acceptable to abuse other editors who act in good faith and leave a reasonable edit summary in the way that you  did to. This type of behaviour seems both arrogant and offensive. It can even leave to editing rights being withdrawn should they reflect an aggressive pattern of behaviour towards others, so please engage more sympathetically with other editors in future. Sometimes a simple apology works wonders.'' Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay-dokay, gov. It's not as if I am unaware of the need to be civil when editing WP and socialising online in general. But I do have my moments, and I have my bad days. If you check my editing records it's obvious I generally play by the rules, guidelines, and the need to be civil. Thank you so much for your concerns you've posted here. Arbo (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Did you know that your latest edit and accompanying rather aggressive edit summary to Clubfoot (diff) actually relates to a change made over a year ago by one of our administrators, ? See here and here. You might like to check out their user page to ascertain their medical credentials and compare them with your own. Once again, I would invite you to ease off your aggressive tone, whether directed at individual editors, or at the world in general. It tends to make the process of contributing here so much more pleasant for everyone involved. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the sheer inanity and inarticulately-expressed word content added by some Wikipedians that beggars belief. As I point out in my critical essay of WP's influence on the world---this is important---civilization must go on! What you and DOC James are in effect doing here is making up excuses for adding bad writing to WP. That's my view of "issues with walking", it pisses me off, and I get puffy about it. Big deal, guys (not). Get over it. Arbo (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The text started as "mobility issues" which changed to "issues with walking". I am fine with further improving to "difficulty with walking".
 * Yes Wikipedia is a work in progress...
 * The other issues above are concerning from a civility point of view. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a work in progress alright, and we all need the ability to take the rough with the smooth. Arbo (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Blade Runner that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz
 * Yes, I know that.
 * I noticed that you made a comment on the page Blade Runner that didn't seem very civil
 * No, I made a comment in my edit summary, not on the article page.
 * so it has been removed
 * You mean to say you reverted my edit. You did not remove my comment, you reverted my last edit. My attachment style in an edit summary is not a valid criterion for reverting another Wikipedian's edit. The usual, accepted reason for reversion is based on disagreement over content. If you wish to complain about what you perceive as incivility, talk to a moderator, preferably one who isn't on an ego trip.
 * Wikipedia is built on collaboration,
 * Nope. It is built on who are the strongest editors.
 * so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner.
 * Yes I know that too. And if, for the record, all I did was say in my edit summary, "Are you happy now? Wake up." If you find that offensive or uncivil then you must be easily-offended.
 * If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * No, if I have any questions I will post them here. Don't tell me what to do, and do not speak to me like I work for you.
 * Thank you Walter. You have given me exactly what I wanted. If you find my comments on your comments uncivil, I can only suggest you cannot take much. Besides which, aren't Christians supposed to follow Christ's example of turning the other cheek? since you re a good Christian you ought to have learnt that piece of practical advice and put it into practice.Arbo (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about the edit you made, nor the revert I later made, but the comment you made directed toward me in the edit summary. I'm sorry that you feel like I'm telling you what to do. That was not my intention. —I was actually trying to warn you to avoid making any uncivil comments. If you want to ignore that, do so at your own peril. Again, that is not telling you what to do, it's simply advice. So in the future, stick to discussing the content, not editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel like I'm telling you what to do
 * I'm not. For my own sake I am not sorry. Your attempt to dramatise this is worthless.
 * I was actually trying to warn you to avoid making any uncivil comments.
 * No kidding! I don't care either way.
 * So in the future, stick to discussing the content, not editors.
 * I have discussed you less than commenting on your actions. Criticism of a person's actions and behavior is not the same thing as commenting on the person per se; therefor this is not ad hominem. Bye-bye now.Arbo (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Philip K. Dick. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Personal attacks at any editor, even those you think are trolls are not accepted here. Please assume good faith and remember to be civil. Thanks.'' JesseRafe (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Usher building.png


The file File:Usher building.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, low-res, no obvious use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 07:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)