User talk:Bigfoot allgame

Cary, N.C.

Thanks for adding photos to the Cary, NC article. You may not realize, but Wikipedia has guidelines about photos. WP:IMGCONTENT says "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." As an example, your photo of the apartment complex does not have the relevant aspect--the building--clear and central. And MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." So photos like the skyline or downtown at night probably should not be included. Placement is also important. A photo should be beside or as close as possible to text that it relates to. As an example, you placed one photo in the history section that does not relate to history. If you have any questions, please let me know. Also if you are wanting to add photos of Cary to Wikipedia, the high schools need photos==for example, Cary High School. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. The images posted were intended to show some features of the area to give readers an idea of what the buildings or forested areas within the town look like. An image of a skyline at night is commonly featured in many Wikipedia articles about large cities or towns. The photo in the history section shows the historic downtown area. Bigfoot allgame (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your photo shows historic buildings, but you placed in the part of the history article that is about the 1750s. Correct placement would have been later in the article when it talks about the creation of downtown OR if I were inserting a photo of historic buildings, I would probably look for a spot in the architecture section to see if historic downtown was discussed there. The key is not to just look at the heading, but to actually match the photo to the text is is beside. Also, in the case of historic buildings, the caption should explain what the buildings are/were. For example, "Ashworth Drug store, formerly the Cary Masonic Temple, circa 1931" rather that "Cary at nighttime." Does that make sense? Rublamb (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please let me say this as delicately as possible...your images are extremely low-quality. I'm not sure if you were using a Nokia flip phone from the 1990s, but the images are discolored and blurry (some even have frames). In one photo you didn't even roll your car window down. Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGES. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, look at this picture. Why would you add this to Wikipedia? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Catfish Lake actually was good quality on my phone and until I posted it. I get that a few of the images I posted were low-quality, however was it really necessary to remove all of them? Most of them did not seem to be low-quality to me. I understand that there are guidelines on image quality, but at least I added images to some articles that did not have an image. Wikipedia is supposed to be a website that anyone can edit. From a readers perspective, Wikipedia would be a better website with more images low quality or not. Bigfoot allgame (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kept a few of your images, but removed most as they were low quality. Wikipedia is the 7th most visited website in the world because editors have little tolerance for low quality. If your reason for being here is to add your low-quality holiday photos--and you could care less about how useful or high-quality they are--I suggest you open a Flickr account instead. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb and DiscoA340: Bigfoot allgame, I'm concerned that you are using Wikipedia as a gallery for your low-quality photos. At Cary, North Carolina, you have been edit warring with three different editors in order to add a low-quality photo back into the article. Now I see you have reverted my edit at William B. Umstead State Park, so you can add back a photo of a rock. Please note that Wikipedia is not an image gallery, per WP:NOTGALLERY. If you want to add images, buy a better camera and take a lesson in photography. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigfoot allgame: I get that these are reasonably good photos from a phone, but the ones you added to Cary, North Carolina are dark, crooked, and don't added anything to the article--and they are also of parks/greenways that are not mentioned in the text. Photos have to relate specifically to the text and enhance the article. To help you better understand the process of adding photos to articles, @Magnolia677 and I actually disagreed about the relevancy of some of the photos that are in the Cary article now--we discussed our concerns in the talk page rather than starting an edit war. I think your Ulmstead Photo is pretty--but we don't add photos to Wikipedia because they are pretty. The photo has to have context and add to an understanding of the content of the article. Where is the photo? From what trail? Are users of the park going to have to scamble over boulders? I know the last question is silly, but my point is that a reader could draw that conclusion from your photo because it lacks context. Rublamb (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to the previous two comments. Many of the images you've uploaded actually look alright where viewed completely in Media Viewer. But when they are put in articles, they get cloudy and out of focus, likely due to bad image compression. This might be caused by the images being a .png file, rather than being the standard .jpeg (or .JPG) file. If you have the option on your camera, you should consider changing that setting, and/or using a device which can take .jpeg pictures; that might solve that problem at least. Have a great day! - DiscoA340 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cary, North Carolina. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bigfoot allgame! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Durham, North Carolina several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Durham, North Carolina, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from ToBeFree

Hello, Bigfoot allgame. You have new messages at ToBeFree's talk page.
Message added 23:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

(permanent link) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Northeast Creek (August 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ktkvtsh was:

While references are provided, there is an incomplete reference in the "Watershed" section. The URL provided is incomplete and needs to be fixed.

The article switches between metric and imperial units without consistency. There are minor typos, such as "Norhtheast Creek" instead of "Northeast Creek."

The article's introduction is too brief and lacks context.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Northeast Creek and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigfoot allgame! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]