User talk:Dominique R

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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 ?).

On Bokeh[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bokeh has no qualitative implication, and the people who say it does are just plain wrong. The Japanese word has no such implication. Mike Johnston doesn't claim it does. And if it did, why would there be need to talk about "good bokeh" or "silky bokeh" or "coarse bokeh" ? Those adjectives would not be needed. I Wikipedia I am trying to correct this very common misunderstanding of the word, which has been repeated over and over by mere, lazy copy-and-paste-ing. Dominique R (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see; you've put your reply above, not in the section where my comment was, so I missed it. I'm moving it for you so you can see how it's done. In general, to replay, just edit the page or section where someone is talking to you. Use a colon, or several, to indent replies. Conclude with four tildes, which will auto-expand into a signature. See WP:TALK and WP:SIGN.

I understand the point you're making, which you've repeated above. You might be right. But without a source to back up that point of view, you can't just change the sourced meaning that's in the article already. A lot of sources say that bokeh refers to the aesthetic quality of the blur, not to the blur itself. It doesn't really matter what the original Japanese term means, though we could comment on that, too, with a source; what's more importantis what the term means, and how it's used, in English. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did an edit to incorpoate some of your points. Note how I used a named ref to refer to Davis, a source both for bokeh being blur and for the association with highlights. Your point about this usage being "erroneous" would need a source; it's not our job to decide what usages are right and wrong, but rather to report on what's out there in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By merely "reporting on what's out there in (supposedly) reliable sources", we just perpetuate the mistakes that have been made over and over since Man first existed. By using one's good common sense, however, and by remembering that you're not less intelligent because your name has not yet appeared on a book (about photography, that is) you can, on, the contrary, hope to put an end to, at least, some of the most obvious "copy-paste errors" that are simply carried over from one source to the next.

In this case, very little good commmon sense is needed to realize : (i) that the Japanese word "bokeh" is factual and has no good nor bad connotations ; (ii) that if it did, one would not need to use an adjective to qualify the bokeh ; and (iii) that since "bokeh" has nothing to do with highlights or lowlights, people reading wikipedia should not be lead to believe it does. I have therefore edited back.Dominique R (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're new at wikipedia, and not totally comfortable with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, but these are the policies that control what we can do here. By repeatedly ignoring my advice to follow policy, and guidelines like WP:EDSUM, you're making yourself appear to be just a POV-pushing problem editor. You can't win that way, so might as well either give it up or learn to be a productive collaborator. If your statements are true, then find a source that backs you up, rather than just contradicting what the sources say. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You talk just like a pen-pushing civil servant. When I add a source that serves me just fine (the Johnston article you yourself quoted) you delete that quote ! Is that serious and honest behavior ? Dominique R (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see I somewhat misinterpreted your previous edit; sometimes it's hard to see from the diff, without a clue from an edit summary, what you're doing, and I hadn't noticed that you had added a source; I'll try to be more careful in my pen-pushing. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What you have just written demonstrates that you do not understand what bokeh is, which I find hard to believe when one claims so much authority, so much (theoretical, at least) knowledge and such command over such a wide range of rules and procedures. Anyway, back to basics and common good sense again : bokeh, as we have seen, has no particular shape or form ; the blur in a picture has no predetermined shape, or no predetermined range of shapes (it's like contrast: does contrast have an a priori shape?), and it certainly is not the little round iris shapes, or the little donut shapes, that you observe when you take a photograph of out-of-focus Christmas lights. If you believe that, and although it is a common misconception, you mistake the effect for the cause. Indeed, as we have seen, bokeh is the blur itself, and NOT whatever shape the blurry elements take. Therefore, the ostrich picture, which exhibits a very soft and velvety (as in "aesthetically desirable") bokeh, serves to show that bokeh exists in lowlight areas as well. Dominique R (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never make claims of authority of Wikipedia, and I'm open to being enlightened about what bokeh is. But I do insist that article edits respect policy; so if you have sources, I'll be happy to learn from them with you, and we can update the article accordingly. If you just have your own personal insights, I'll be happy to hear those, too, but let's not put them into the article without sources, especially if they contradict other sourced stuff in the article. OK? On the ostrich picture, how can one distinguish between the smooth bokeh of a lens versus a smooth background? In the pictures of lights, it's very easy to see the characteristic bokeh of the lens; of course, that doesn't mean that bokeh only matters when you take pictures of such things. It would be appropriate at this point to invite other opinions, on the article talk page. I'll do that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what sourced stuff the picture of the ostrich contradicts. Regarding the smoothness of that background, if you think for one moment that it can be the result of anything that exists in real life, and that is photographed in focus, you demonstrate that your knowledge of photography is very theoretical indeed. Any photographer having actually worked in the field trying to achieve silky bokeh will tell you that that's what it is : smooth blur artificially produced by a lens. And regarding your idea to invite others to participate, do not forget that a wrong shared by several does not make a right. Once again, please use your head and your common sense : you can think by yourself without having to resort to others' thoughts as crutches. Dominique R (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean the ostrich picture contradicts sourced stuff; some of your previous statements did, but I think we're about OK on that now. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS[edit]

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)[reply]

How can I "make a case" when the concerned picture keeps being deleted without objective and substantive good reasons being given to support such attitude ?

You can make a case by using your words; on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My case has already been made above. You make yours. Dominique R (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

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)[reply]

Since you reverted again, even within 24 hours in spite of the warning, I have now reported you for edit warring and 3RR violation here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my report was redundant; you had already been reported a couple of sections above there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what is all that in the section above titled "On Bokeh"? It looks like Dicklyon coming here to discuss your edit. Please refactor your request; assumptions of bad faith against other users are generally not reviewed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Bokeh. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring[edit]

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)[reply]

On the contrary, I have stated ver clearly above (1) my desire you resolve this situation, (2) my reasons for which the ostrich photo should remain on the Bokeh article page, and (3) my repeated requests for objective, rational reasons for YOUR systematic removals of same. I'm still waiting to hear those.Dominique R (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you have stated your position clearly; thanks for that. Based on the call for more opinions there's now a consensus of 5 photographically knowledgeable editors against using this picture, so I trust we can drop it now. I've also alerted the admin who blocked you that since coming off block for 3RR violation your only article edits have been three more repeats of the same revert. He may intervene again if you continue to edit war in the face of a clear consensus against you. If you have further questions about the rationale of any of us, I'm sure we'll be happy to talk, but not while you're aggressively edit warring and pushing a photo in which you have a clear personal interest. Have a great trip. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]