User talk:68.207.207.137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Can't this article ever progress with out you constantly reverting it back to it's oldest form? It seems (from reading the history) that any time some one contributes you revert it back. This is not progression but taking steps back. Please use the talk page.

The one image you added of the firescape causes problems and simply is not helpful to a featured article due to the poor resolution at the size needed to try and contain it...it also makes most users have to use the vertical scroll. The link you added to the commons gallery isn't needed as there already is a link in the references cited section.--MONGO 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


The panoramic photograph demonstrates the effect fires have on Yellowstone. It clearly illistrates the life cycle with in the park. How is that not useful? You also say that it's resolution is too low? How can that be when the picture is over a megapixel or two in size!

In order for almost anyone to be able to see it, it would take up too much of the page...why not just leave it in Commons and allow people to go there. In the article, one is forced to use the vertical scroll in many cases and this is not acceptable for a featured article. The rest of your work is fine...I'll make sure the images is on commons and and remove it along with the link to commons that you added, as we have a link already located in the references cited section.--MONGO 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

99% of the viewing public will not go to or know how to find wikicommons or that such a place exists, with it being there where it was, it will get many more views. Putting a photo in the article can help save space because it works to replace a thousand words.

I did not see a vertical scroll on my computer. My screen resolution is 1600x1200 and the picture was set to 1150px.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Fallen_Logs_along_Fountain_Flat_Drive.jpg

Did you take the images? What is the big deal...it is not helpful to the article. There are infinitely better images that can be located that do a much better job (without the wacky stretch effect) that would better demonstrate fire ecology...half the image is of a road.--MONGO 09:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The photograph clearly shows the long term effects a fire has on an ecosystem and saves a 1000 words from being added to the fire section of the article.

the photograph was adjusted to 768px to accomodate 95% of the monitors currently in use today. I tested it all the way down to 800x600 and at that resolution only the slightest hint of "streatch" was noticeable.

I'm going to recommend you contribute to the discussion page on the park article, not here, as this solves nothing. The image is not a good depiction of the fire ecology cycle and encyclopedia articles are supposed to have words, not be dominated by images.--MONGO 09:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The images look big due to your resolution settings. I have written and or was a major contributor on 4 featured articles, so your continued efforts to make a mess out of the Yellowstone article are not helpful.--MONGO 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


1)The images do not look very big on my (Sony Professional CRT) 1600x1200 screen. 1024x768 is the least common denominator, that is why a 768px width was used. Leave the fire picture in as it is now for all to see and then as a group we can come to a concensus about it's future existance in the Yellowstone page. 2)You complain about photos taking up too much space yet you keep enlarging them so they end up taking space away from the article and some end up clipping text. Keep the size modest and uniform in order to keep the article clean.

A great example of photographic uniformity is the grand canyon article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

That article is not a featured article and we don't need a picture that is almost half road to demostrate fire ecology. Here's a link for you to read up on WP:3RR.--MONGO 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are just as guilty as I am of the WP:3RR rule. THanks for the link and information. The picture does have a road. Pay attention to teh background on the right side you can see charred remains mixed in with new groth. If such a picture is not needed then why is there a portion of the article dedicated to Forest Fire? The long term effects that fire has on yellostone should be displayed.

I am sure you think you are doing what you think is the best thing for the article, but your edits are not helpful in the manner you are making them. I left links to two featured articles that were promoted just in the last 6 months, which provide demonstration of the quality level style and references that are expected. The Yellowstone article was made a featured article almost 3 years ago, when the standards were somewhat lower overall. I have been trying to add information to the article to get it to a level equal if not better to the ones I have on the article talk page which you can link to. I have started or been involved in 5 featured articles, so it's not like I don';t know what I'm talking about. Lastly, if you will understand that I know I can find better images to demonstrate wildfire ecology, then you might stop insisting on one lousy image that is almost 50% roadway. That section will be expanded greatly in words. However, if you are going to edit war on the article, I'll just let you go ahead...that is until someone else comes along and reverts you. How about you create a username and learn to timestamp your postings on the talkpages as well?--MONGO 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"I have started or been involved in 5 featured articles, so it's not like I don';t know what I'm talking about"

You must see me as some form of dumb sub human life. Thanks.

Sincerly- 68.207.207.137

  • (PS No one really cares. Get over it)


"I'll just let you go ahead...that is until someone else comes along and reverts you

Thant's exactly what you have been doing since I made my first constructive edit. I fixed errors and you revert it back to the oldest edit. The article history shows you have been doing this quite a bit, It's a two way street pal, so learn to give in and not undo the work of otehrs or this article will go nowhere.


Sincerly- 68.207.207.137

  • PS. I am sure others had something to do with those feature articles and you couldn't have been the sole dictating contributor.

By the way, I am on a dynamic IP, so this IP address (68.207.207.137) could change at anytime.

Sincerly-

68.207.207.137

Contents

[edit] Yellowstone

Hi there. I dropped by to offer a note of explanation for my revert, but I see you've already been discussing some of these things. So I'll be brief.

First of all, is it possible that some of the issues with photo size have to do with your setup? Keep in mind that photos and text line up differently depending on the size of your screen, the size of your window, and the browser you're using to view the site.

Secondly, I think the information you added to the captions was good but would be better suited to the body of the article; see this guideline for more information on that.

Hope that information helps. Happy editing! Kafziel Talk 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)'


I am working on shortening the captions, they are a work in progress and I will most likely finish them tonight after I get home from work. TTFN

Sincerly, 68.207.207.137.

I don't understand; how are you shortening them? You're shrinking the pictures and making the captions longer than they were before. What am I missing? Kafziel Talk 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It was about a week ago that all photo's in this article had huge captions that were eventually cut down. The same will be happening to this article very soon

[edit] Yellow

I am shortening the captions that I copied from the national park service website. I am going to try to keep the same information but do it using fewer words. I am still trying to figure out how to do it.

Okay, but why shrink the photos? They fit fine at 250px, and at 200px the captions seem much longer. I recommend rewriting the captions while keeping the photos at their 250 size. I don't really have much to do with the page (as you can see in the article's edit history) so it's not a big deal to me either way, but I think you'll have a much easier time of things if you'll be willing to compromise. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow

There are several other photographs with long captions like the fire hole river that I did not add. But I will work to shorten them with out affecting their meaning. I will do this at a later time. "The Firehole River near Excelsior Geyser. Due to the volume of heated water pouring into the river from the geothermal features, the temperature of the river can get as high as 86 °F (30 °C).

[edit] Question

You go around and reduce the size of the images throughout the Yellowstone article, claiming that they are taking up too much room, yet enlarge this one...also, please use your main account which is obviously User:CamperStrike--MONGO 10:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.207.207.137.html"