Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jan"

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
m (→‎On minor edits)
(Answer to Agricola, moved greeting back where it belonged)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
I see, to my surprise, that you are dissatisfied with my edit summaries: "... And I see a complete lack of any meaningful edit summary, other than "contrib", "edit txt" and the like". - Please understand that I need to learn, and I am surprised, and a bit put off being attacked in this manner. I think you will agree I have tried, and have shown a positive attitude to any suggestions made. Why haven't you just told me?
 
I see, to my surprise, that you are dissatisfied with my edit summaries: "... And I see a complete lack of any meaningful edit summary, other than "contrib", "edit txt" and the like". - Please understand that I need to learn, and I am surprised, and a bit put off being attacked in this manner. I think you will agree I have tried, and have shown a positive attitude to any suggestions made. Why haven't you just told me?
  
−
As to the current conflict, I think you blow it out of proportions, but I'm sorry causing trouble, and it definitely need a solution.
+
(..........)
  
−
I was aware of Uwe's more liberal view already the day after I introduced this entry, my first by the way, when he answered the question placed by you in the discussion page. The lengthy reply was partly in line with my own view, but made room for almost any type of bellows cameras, if taken literally.
+
With respect, Jan - 13 July 2009
  
−
However, I decided not to oppose his views, not being prepared to enter a lengthy discussion, which most certainly would be difficult to hold within the factual aspect of the article. I regret this decision now of course, but my arguments would not have been the same as now, and possibly with less focus. In stead, I decided to proceed with caution and be prepared to accept incoming contributions, which as you will se I went a long way to accomplish. At one point I even retracted some of my wording, which you call disturbing edits, hoping to attract attention to the article, and to get a more diversified range of contributors. This failed, and no other contributors grasp the opportunity. Further, I have not noticed any contributor making disturbing edits, on the contrary, as always, I have received positive edits were needed.
+
:Jan,
 +
:My reaction to the Reisekamera page was a bit hasty, because I was about to leave town (and the Internet) for a few days when I noticed the last edits to the page. I was worried that there was some misunderstanding on this article, and I thought I should leave a message on the talk page, asking you and Uwe to communicate on the talk page, for fear that the situation could turn sour.
 +
:In order to post my message, I had to spend a non negligible amount of time to understand the page history, and the task was made much more complicated by the absence of edit summaries. You are right to say that I should have given advice earlier, and I apologize for having expressed this in a rough way.
 +
:Best regards,
 +
:[[User:Rebollo fr|rebollo_fr]] 14:42, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
  
−
Never the less, the situation has not been an easy and cooperative one. Believe me, I have been deeply concerned, realising the different attitudes. As you should know by now, I write somewhat in depth - hands on articles, on camera models I believe to know. In this case it is the wooden bellows camera of a very distinct build, which quite often is nameless. This was my starting point: Nameless - distinct type - and with an established generic name: Reisekamera.
+
::Rebollo fr.
−
 
+
::No, you were right, the entry needed attention, and it is yet to see how it works out, but I feel the situation is on the right track now. I still think the term Reisekamera should, at least as a first impression, represent the one very distinct camera type. So please keep an eye on the page, and suggestions are welcome.
−
Unfortunately, this possibly unusual approach, has not been easy for others to comprehend, to my surprise - may I add. There is to my knowledge no problem with the article as such, but rather what cameras it should cover. This situation can not be solved without realising the encyclopaedic concept involved, as I have pointed out.
 
−
 
 
−
A different approach at the outset might have avoided this conflict all together: If this exact article had been written for eg. the Ernemann Globus, no one would have interfered. However, the Globus is in fact not made by Ernemann, but by manufacturers in Görlitz, who most probably also made many of the anonymous Reisekameras!. I find this a very intriguing camera, and I need help from many to enlighten it properly.  
 
−
 
 
−
With respect, Jan - 13 July 2009
 
  
−
:Hello Jan
+
::With regards, Jan - 16 July 2009
  
−
:While searching more material I've found the images now in the [[Reisekamera|article]], and beyond that I found new samples of the front focusing Reisekamera for which I have given the sources, and after a closer look onto an image of the Werner camera I've listed Alfred Werner as maker of common Reisekameras instead of maker of front focus Reisekameras (Making Vienna a Reisekamera metropolis beside Görlitz and Dresden!). Beyond that all I've also found a description of the "Reise- und Landschaftskamera" by Dr. E. Vogel from 1910 which is almost according to your description. The intro says that the images show "one of the most common forms of that camera type". After having seen many samples of Reisekameras this can just mean the common type of Reisekamera with non-tapering bellows whilst the other common form is the one with tapering bellows. Exceptions are more or less well known front focus models. These might have been known as Reisekamera when made in German speaking countries, similar cameras by British, French or other makers were named Reisekamera in German literature, some of them originally sold as "chambre de voyage" or "travel camera", some of them classified erroneously by collectors. So we can only count Austrian, German, Czech and Swiss made front focus Reisekameras. A little group of cameras but in fact Reisekameras. Classified as such not by me but by real experts. I hope that that will not be neglected by saying "Uwe wants to put all kinds of bellows and view cameras into that srticle." It was costly research to find all this information. The makers of cameras going clearly beyond a certain degree of sophistication are listed under "makers of more sophisticated field cameras sold as "travel camera", "Reisekamera" or "chambre de voyage". I think everybody who reads the article until this last list understands that these cameras go beyond the descriptions above and are just listed for completeness, or like a Russian colleague once said "Just to confuse the Russians" ;-)
+
==SR-3==
 +
Hi Jan. In [[Minolta SR-3]] you wrote "the optical glasses themselves from raw materials like sand and rare..." I had changed that because "glasses" means the thing that you wear on your face. The plural (glasses) has to be a countable object, so maybe you mean "lenses" or "optical elements". But now your edit seems to mean that they make their own "glass". (Notice that we use the singular). If you mean that they make more than one kind of glass, the plural has to be "types of glass". At any rate, "glasses" is definitely incorrect in this context. [[User:Agricola|Agricola]] 18:38, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
  
−
:Another day I'd like to extract information from Dr. E. Vogel's book that maybe missing in the article. That would extend the article's clear emphasis on the common type of Reisekamera so that the reader will surely understand what is a typical Reisekamera and what is the rare but existing alternate type.
+
::Agricola.
−
:Best regards, Uwe (U. Kulick 16:00, 13 July 2009 (EDT))
+
Thanks for your concern, but I am well aware of the double meaning of the word glasses, one has to interpret the meaning from the context. Glasses, meaning several sorts of glass, is an established term in the optical glass industry, you might find it used by experts like Rudolf Kingslake. In stead of changing the meaning of the content, I would prefer you draw attention to such matters on the article's discussion page. However, Rebollo has now rewritten the phrase to another useful form, avoiding the double meaning situation.  
  
−
:and sorry for all woe and worries I might have caused (U. Kulick 16:19, 13 July 2009 (EDT))
+
With respect, Jan - 3 Oct. 2009

Latest revision as of 23:26, 2 October 2009

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Camerapedia! I would like to thank you for your recent useful edits. I'm happy to see a page about the Pentax LX, which is an extremely fine camera indeed. Feel free to post more about this! I have raised questions in some talk pages, please have a read. Regards, --Rebollo fr 07:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)

On minor edits

Hello,

I notice that you usually check the "minor edit" button for almost all your edits, even when making heavy changes to the contents of a page, such as this diff or this recent diff. Please bear in mind that the usual policy is to tag as a "minor edit" those which do not imply any profound modification of the page, such as fixing a few typos, fixing a link, adding a few internal links and the like. Major changes to the main text should be labelled as such, without checking the "minor edit" button. This is not a big deal, but makes admin tasks easier.

Best regards, --Rebollo fr 16:53, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Thanks for advising me. I guess I felt I was supposed to check a box for no good reason. I expect the bold "m" in the history list next to the contributor's name indicates having checked the "minor edit" button. I will certainly not check it again, unless I feel the edit really is minor, but I would like to point out that even though the text looks completely changed the content may not have been changed significantly. Still the edit is, as you point out, not minor.

By the way, thanks for correcting my spelling. I shall have to find ways to improve. But I'm facinated to see how each edit improves the entries, proving that the wikipedia principle really works.

Best regards, Jan

Rebollo fr!

I see, to my surprise, that you are dissatisfied with my edit summaries: "... And I see a complete lack of any meaningful edit summary, other than "contrib", "edit txt" and the like". - Please understand that I need to learn, and I am surprised, and a bit put off being attacked in this manner. I think you will agree I have tried, and have shown a positive attitude to any suggestions made. Why haven't you just told me?

(..........)

With respect, Jan - 13 July 2009

Jan,
My reaction to the Reisekamera page was a bit hasty, because I was about to leave town (and the Internet) for a few days when I noticed the last edits to the page. I was worried that there was some misunderstanding on this article, and I thought I should leave a message on the talk page, asking you and Uwe to communicate on the talk page, for fear that the situation could turn sour.
In order to post my message, I had to spend a non negligible amount of time to understand the page history, and the task was made much more complicated by the absence of edit summaries. You are right to say that I should have given advice earlier, and I apologize for having expressed this in a rough way.
Best regards,
rebollo_fr 14:42, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
Rebollo fr.
No, you were right, the entry needed attention, and it is yet to see how it works out, but I feel the situation is on the right track now. I still think the term Reisekamera should, at least as a first impression, represent the one very distinct camera type. So please keep an eye on the page, and suggestions are welcome.
With regards, Jan - 16 July 2009

SR-3

Hi Jan. In Minolta SR-3 you wrote "the optical glasses themselves from raw materials like sand and rare..." I had changed that because "glasses" means the thing that you wear on your face. The plural (glasses) has to be a countable object, so maybe you mean "lenses" or "optical elements". But now your edit seems to mean that they make their own "glass". (Notice that we use the singular). If you mean that they make more than one kind of glass, the plural has to be "types of glass". At any rate, "glasses" is definitely incorrect in this context. Agricola 18:38, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Agricola.

Thanks for your concern, but I am well aware of the double meaning of the word glasses, one has to interpret the meaning from the context. Glasses, meaning several sorts of glass, is an established term in the optical glass industry, you might find it used by experts like Rudolf Kingslake. In stead of changing the meaning of the content, I would prefer you draw attention to such matters on the article's discussion page. However, Rebollo has now rewritten the phrase to another useful form, avoiding the double meaning situation.

With respect, Jan - 3 Oct. 2009

Retrieved from "http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jan&oldid=88317"