|This is the discussion page for Jan.
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
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
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
- 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
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)
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