Welcome!
Hello, Dominique R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
I'm not sure how to use a "talk" page and the interface is not very user-friendly (i.e., where's the "Reply" button ?).
I reverted your edit, summarized as "The Japanese word "bokeh" has no aesthetic or qualitative meaning at all. Bokeh is just blur," in which you replaced a sourced definition with an unsourced definition and commentary. Note that there is no claim in the article that the Japanese term has any particular meaning; the article is about the English term. Be sure to always cite a source when changing the meaning of something in an article, so it doesn't devolve into just a battle of opinions. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted again, since you put it back without comment; I'll work on re-doing Srleffler's intervening edits. If you have a problem with the sourced info in the lead, use the talk page, or at least an edit summary, to tell us what it is. Is the statement not supported by the source? Or maybe the source is wrong, or unreliable? Tell us. Use the talk page. Also, when you make corrections, don't use negatives that sound like you're chiding the previous author of the page by saying what bokeh is not; just say what it is, and cite your source. Let's work this out. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What's with the ostrich picture? It tells you nothing at all about the lens bokeh, since there are no small bright spots to reveal what the bokeh looks like. A featureless background will always give a smooth blur, but without features, you can't tell anything about the lens. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Bokeh appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Thank you.
Oda Mari (
talk)
18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When there's an apparent consensus that your new image is not helpful, it's not going to further your cause to argue that we didn't give an "objective reason." Make your case on the talk page, not in revert summaries. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Also please note that you're close to violating the three-revert rule: WP:3RR. You can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't literally revert 4 times in 24 hours, so try to use discussion instead of edit warring. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dominique R ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello, I was not aware of this so-called 3RR rule, but the person who persists in editing the Bokeh page without adequate justification obviously did know it very well : he and another person (Andy something) took turns to undo my edits so as to avoid the 3RR rule, which is both very childish and very unfair. On the merits, we differ on whether a certain photograph should be included on the Bokeh page as being illustrative of what is referred to as "bokeh". I have explained at length, on the concerned discuss page, my objective and factual reasons for it to be included on the Bokeh page, while they keep alledging that it should not be there, without articulating any substantive reasons... but removing it every time. My repeated edits only aimed at putting it back, together with a five-word phrase referring to it in the main text. I therefore request that the ban be lifted. Thank you in advance. Dominique R ( talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned about 3RR above and continued to revert after that warning was given. The merits of the edits are not important; when there is a dispute between editors, it is important to stop editing and discuss the matter in order to form a consensus, so as to prevent continued disruption to the article. This block (not a ban) is only temporary, and will expire in about 22 hours. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dominique R ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Fine. However, one wonders how come the two obviously very Wiki-savvy persons I mentioned before did not do just that : discuss the matter with me by setting out their objective arguments, instead of just deleting the concerned picture again and again. Had they intended to trick me into triggering this 3RR thing that they wouldn't have behaved otherwise... Plus, the first one (Dicklyon) probably canvassed in order to obtain the second's (Andy something) assistance... That, I believe, is not very proper.
Decline reason:
When your block expires, please feel free to pursue Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Now you know to avoid 3RR, so I hope this won't become a problem again. – Luna Santin ( talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
. Dominique R ( talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dom, since coming off the block, you're reverted twice more, each time restoring your own photograph to the article, against a consensus of other editors. Your discussion has been more combative than helpful, and you've completely decline an attempt at a compromise. This is your warning that if you keep this up, you'll shortly be blocked again. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Dominique R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
I'm not sure how to use a "talk" page and the interface is not very user-friendly (i.e., where's the "Reply" button ?).
I reverted your edit, summarized as "The Japanese word "bokeh" has no aesthetic or qualitative meaning at all. Bokeh is just blur," in which you replaced a sourced definition with an unsourced definition and commentary. Note that there is no claim in the article that the Japanese term has any particular meaning; the article is about the English term. Be sure to always cite a source when changing the meaning of something in an article, so it doesn't devolve into just a battle of opinions. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted again, since you put it back without comment; I'll work on re-doing Srleffler's intervening edits. If you have a problem with the sourced info in the lead, use the talk page, or at least an edit summary, to tell us what it is. Is the statement not supported by the source? Or maybe the source is wrong, or unreliable? Tell us. Use the talk page. Also, when you make corrections, don't use negatives that sound like you're chiding the previous author of the page by saying what bokeh is not; just say what it is, and cite your source. Let's work this out. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What's with the ostrich picture? It tells you nothing at all about the lens bokeh, since there are no small bright spots to reveal what the bokeh looks like. A featureless background will always give a smooth blur, but without features, you can't tell anything about the lens. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Bokeh appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
core policies. Thank you.
Oda Mari (
talk)
18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When there's an apparent consensus that your new image is not helpful, it's not going to further your cause to argue that we didn't give an "objective reason." Make your case on the talk page, not in revert summaries. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Also please note that you're close to violating the three-revert rule: WP:3RR. You can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't literally revert 4 times in 24 hours, so try to use discussion instead of edit warring. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dominique R ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello, I was not aware of this so-called 3RR rule, but the person who persists in editing the Bokeh page without adequate justification obviously did know it very well : he and another person (Andy something) took turns to undo my edits so as to avoid the 3RR rule, which is both very childish and very unfair. On the merits, we differ on whether a certain photograph should be included on the Bokeh page as being illustrative of what is referred to as "bokeh". I have explained at length, on the concerned discuss page, my objective and factual reasons for it to be included on the Bokeh page, while they keep alledging that it should not be there, without articulating any substantive reasons... but removing it every time. My repeated edits only aimed at putting it back, together with a five-word phrase referring to it in the main text. I therefore request that the ban be lifted. Thank you in advance. Dominique R ( talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned about 3RR above and continued to revert after that warning was given. The merits of the edits are not important; when there is a dispute between editors, it is important to stop editing and discuss the matter in order to form a consensus, so as to prevent continued disruption to the article. This block (not a ban) is only temporary, and will expire in about 22 hours. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dominique R ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Fine. However, one wonders how come the two obviously very Wiki-savvy persons I mentioned before did not do just that : discuss the matter with me by setting out their objective arguments, instead of just deleting the concerned picture again and again. Had they intended to trick me into triggering this 3RR thing that they wouldn't have behaved otherwise... Plus, the first one (Dicklyon) probably canvassed in order to obtain the second's (Andy something) assistance... That, I believe, is not very proper.
Decline reason:
When your block expires, please feel free to pursue Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Now you know to avoid 3RR, so I hope this won't become a problem again. – Luna Santin ( talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
. Dominique R ( talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dom, since coming off the block, you're reverted twice more, each time restoring your own photograph to the article, against a consensus of other editors. Your discussion has been more combative than helpful, and you've completely decline an attempt at a compromise. This is your warning that if you keep this up, you'll shortly be blocked again. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)