User talk:Jan

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?

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.

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.

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.

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