Talk:Bascom Hill

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image(s) of Bascom Hall

Addressing in the points made in this edit summary:

IMO the text looks fine. I have looked at this article on a standard and a wide screen monitor, and I am not seeing the issue.
Bascom Hall is on Bascom hill. There isn't an article on Bascom Hall. Anyways, the picture in the Infobox is just of Bascom Hall as well.
I think the picture has encyclopedic value as it shows the Abe Lincoln statue mentioned in the article.

Please discuss these points here before reverting again. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing this edit summary:

The page looks bad in your opinion and I totally disagree. Of course the paragraphs are not aligned, there is a picture. That's not a technical issue as hundreds if not thousands of other articles use left aligned pictures. A technical issue would imply that there is a serious issue with the page layout that makes the page unreadable, which is not the case. I totally understand if you don't like the way the page looks with the picture, and I am willing to work to consensus so that everyone is happy with the article, but simply reverting the additions without any discussion is just dense. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunads-- You really need to stop being so possessive of the articles you edit, to assume good faith, and above all, to not resort to impolite name-calling. On my monitor, the article looks like this:

The hill is

crowned by

Bascom Hall,

the main

administration

etc.

That clearly is a technical issue-- a fact, not a matter of opinion, and 64.252.139.169 was not dense to point that out. Stay cool, and stop edit warring. --Sift&Winnow 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How big is your monitor?

I was not edit warring(really after two reverts? come'on). I was reverting, what was at the time, two unjustified edits. Ok, I get the page looks bad on your monitor; now let's work to a compromise.

BWT, the page looks like this for me:
The hill is crowned by Bascom Hall, the main administration building for the campus. Near{br}
the main entrance to Bascom Hall sits a statue of President Abraham Lincoln. The first{br}
university building, North Hall, was constructed on Bascom Hill in 1851 and is still in use by{br}

The page looked fine to me, the picture added encyclopedic value, and no material justification to the otherwise was provided. I did not say the picture should be there because I took it. I used the talk page, discussed why the picture warranted inclusion, and tried to head off pointless reverting. Sitting there telling to me to assume good faith is ... well I won't go there.

Lastly, saying that an edit was dense was prolly out of line on my part. The comment was directed at the edit, not the editor and hopefully there wasn't too much confusion about that. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Now on to an actual solution ... I made the size of the thumbnail smaller; does it still look bad on other monitors? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bascom Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829113210/http://www.news.wisc.edu/5643.html to http://www.news.wisc.edu/5643.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]