User talk:Adamant1/Archives

Archives

You don't need to edit archives of talk pages for resolved cases: the archives are there to be kept as is, they are all resolved, or stalled if they are in archives ! — Verdy_p ^(talk) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I don't know why you think that tabs don't work on mobiles. There's no problem at all (but yes some long tab bars should be a bit shorter, however this wiki cannot be really navigated in landscape mode without using an horizontal bar: there are lots of tables everywhere).

The wiki is perfectly usable on mobiles in landscape mode if the horizontal resolution in portrait mode is not wide enough).

We try to have pages reasonably usable on mobiles but this wiki is not tuned at all for mobiles (it still does not have the MediaWiki extension that allows tuning the layout). So standard browsers are needed: on mobiles, most users are using iOS and Android, and their native browsers are quite good (if not, users can still download Chrome on Android; no problem on iPhones)

There's no support at all for other lower end ranges of mobiles on other mobiles OSes (they are falling out of market rapidly).

On tablets, most users also use Android, iOS, or Windows, and the space available is large enough to display tabs.

Note that changing horizontal tabs by vertical lists is boring for users of desktops and tablets. Ideally we should be using "flex" layouts which better scale to all screen sizes, but this requires HTML5 and recent browsers supporting this layout. "Flex" layout is available on mobile browsers since Android 4.4, but we still have users with older versions of Android and older browsers, so for now we still use tabs created with tables (just like many pages of this wiki that contain various tables).

Introducing flex layouts will be tried but progressively. For now it's still safer to use multicolumn block layouts (which can adapt to display width with some efforts provided we don't use very long lists that require vertical scrolling to go from the bettom of a column to the top of the next column).

But navigation menus using tabs are reasonably working on all mobiles phones used with the landscape orientation. Supporting mobiles in portrait will require using flex layouts but we still need to wait about a couple of years, or it will be done progressively. (and for maitaining compatibilyt it would require adding some javascript framework, something still not possible on this wiki, and this also requires a more recent version of MediaWiki to support better integration of CSS; this cannot be done because of limited capatilities of the server hosting this wiki, which also still cannot use Scribunto/Lua modules: this wiki is not Wikipedia, it is much smaller and has limited resources). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Reply to|Verdy_p)

I didn't think I needed to. It was just something to do. Last time I checked, people are free to edit things on here how they want as long as its not vandalism right?

As far as the other thing goes, that's all interesting information, but A. it only applies to one reason I gave B. The other reasons are still valid C. Last time I checked the wiki guidelines say anyone can edit a page how ever they want, even if its a big change.

Considering that, I don't see how your thing about landscape mode etc etc is a valid reason for a revert, as interesting as it may be. Not that it should matter anyway, but even if the tabbed pages are technically view-able on mobile, its still a convoluted mess. It even is for desktop because of the reasons I stated. The heading paragraph doesn't even fit most of the pages, the tabs are named wrong, the order makes no sense etc etc. really, I've already stated why I think the edit is valid. Last time checked the wiki says pages should be easily view-able and navigable by the readers. With tabs its not for me and I'm sure its not for a lot of other people. Mobile, PC, or a potato. Its a bad way of displaying pages and there's reason its necessary anyway. Its ridiculous I even have to take the time to explain it. If anything, its on you to defend the validity of your reversion and I don't think the reason you gave is valid. Your not an administrator right? So what rule says you can revert the hour of work I put into those edits just because? What guideline or rule makes your opinion more valid than mine? If you can't give a valid, well thought out reason why the pages should stay the way they are, I'm just going to change them back again. Because your diatribe about the back end technology just doesn't cut it. I know you have put a lot of time and effort into improving the wiki and I appreciate all that, but it doesn't give you ultimate say. I'm not going to ask for permission to edit pages or spend my time justifying the edits beyond the summaries either. Even with big changes, because its certainly within the rules for me to make them. In the future if you see an edit I screwed up or if actually break a rule, feel free to message me and I'll just fix the mistake. I would appreciate it though if you didn't revert me like that without talking to me first. Its bad form and needlessly wastes both our time. Especially if I have to just change things back again because your reason was bad and not based on any guidelines like this time.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to leave me a note, along with reading my response Adamant1 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Adamant1

In fact even on my smartphone, there's no problem at all in portrait mode (I don't need any horizontal scrolling: tabs are properly sized, possibly with wrapped labels to allow compaction on verry narrow screens. And what you did was to duplicate the content across several pages. I do not see any benefit or ease of maintenance of navigation. And you did that for a single page but the overall site has much larger pages, with lots of tables and is not really intended to be navigatable in portrait mode on a narrow smartphone. And all smartphones sold today have ample enough resolution. And tabs are easier to navigate with a finger (due to their margin), than list of links (which are wasting vertical space and not easy to locate for basic navigation across tightly related pages. I do not see any reason to change that, your given two reasons were simply wrong, and your change does not improve anything, it is just inconsistant and LESS navigatable than before, less accessible, and it wastes space on large screens.

Once again it there's something to do, it's not to reintroduce vertical buletted lists (very old fashion), but introduce REAL mobile concepts (and notably "flex" layouts, which for now should be limired and tuned to make sure they are correctly rendered with reasonable fallbacks on older desktop or mobile browsers).

You are new on this wiki, and this cannot be changed like this and without in fact any benefit. You are also starting to edit archived pages that should be left as is (only maintained to avoid breaking links, but without changing the archived contents like you do: adding strikes on section titles of archives goes nowhere, it just obscures more these archives, and does not add or fixes anything).

And now with your changes we have inconsistant pages which were kept in sync. Tabbed pages are used on many projects on this wiki and it's unlikely that the real maintainers of these pages will accept you start desynchronizing things when we tried to unify the presentation and translations, and the navigation. This tab template has been tested and used by many people. You are the first do complain (but only after making the change which just adds new complications for maintenance). This wiki has various problems but you concentrate here on something that was not asked, not needed at all. Note also tyhat there are no bots on this wiki. All is done by humans and such navigation template is done so that it is easily integrable and reused, without having to edit multiple pages. — Verdy_p ^(talk) 15:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. Whatever you say. Like I already said, cool if it works on your phone. It doesn't on mine and having it with tabs still has a bunch of other issues that you didn't address. Your essentially trying to use a straw man by devolving this into a conversation about design principles and my lack of experience at editing the wiki. Ultimately its a pointless way push that your right simply because you have been here longer and have more edits then me. How ever much you wax poetic about design theory though, the fact is that I did not break any rules with my edit and I was simply doing what the wiki says I can do. Those are the facts. There's no reason you can't just say so and go give your stick to the next sucker that comes along. Also, just because I low a edit number on this account and this site doesn't mean I don't know anything about website design or how to edit a wiki page properly. It's pretty basic stuff. Even if I didn't have any experience at all though it still wouldn't give you the right to revert me. unless I actually did something wrong. Which I didn't.

As far as the "design cohesion" goes, last time I checked none of the normal pages are locked and they can be edited however anyone wants. So its not my issue or anyone else that is editing the pages if it breaks your attempts at page unification. It might suck if that happens, but that's life. I have over 6 thousand edits on the regular OpenStreetMap site. I'm pretty sure at least half of them have been changed somehow by know. That's what happens when your working on a project that anyone can edit. Once again, if its not breaking a rule then it shouldn't be an issue. Going by your logic know one would be able to even add a letter or a new word to any page because it would screw up a translation. That's not realistic at all. Plus, I bet a lot of pages in other languages besides English are not exact copies. Should I go and revert all of them and whine about how they need to keep "their" pages in sync with "mine"? Why should me or anyone else care. I don't read German. I don't care how closely the German page

Looks to the English one. If there is no is automatic translation service, then it is going to happen. Your right no one explicitly asked me to make the changes. I remember there being anything in the rules or guidelines saying "don't edit anything until someone sends you a message asking you to do it" though. Do you? Last time I checked people are pretty autonomous on here to edit how and they want. I actually did a lot of research on the guidelines and looked for forums/talk pages that were about and by editors. There really wasn't anything out there though. So the community sucks and that's suppose to be my responsibility? I guess I should of created a forum and waited until I had 10000 member circle jerk going before I did any edits. All these reasons you have given me like the fact that there are not bots are not my problem. Nowhere does it say I have to wait until those things get worked out to edit pages. If you have a problem with it, go implement a bot system. I'm not going to hold off on editing though until all the stars align the way you want them to. Anyway, despite the fact that know one explicitly asked me to strike out the titles in the talk archive, there was a mention of how the section needed major work on the cleanup page. So I was just doing what I could do. For all you know maybe striking things out was just one part of a larger clean up effort, which the cleanup page did explicitly mention. And the tab thing was part of larger effort to make the tabs system and pages better. You just assumed I didn't know what I was doing though and assumed it was out of ignorance. Like I said before, all you had to do was leave me a message and I would of pointed out exactly on the cleanup page where it explicitly mentions those things. I would of been happy to point it. For whatever reason you decided not to just ask though. I'm pretty sure to that the whole "making things readable and understandable for users" doesn't mean formatting the page so it looks like a page from the early nineties, that only looks good on a Tandy TRS-80. That might just be me though. Like I said before, unless you can cite a rule or guide line I broke, I'm just going to re-due it. Anything other than that, your just wasting your breath.

P.S. I actually looked over your profile before I did the edit and it was pretty obvious from reading it that you would revert me for some invalid reason. There's always that one guy. There really shouldn't be though.

Adamant1 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Adamant1

But you are now doing a personal attack with unusefully agressive terms. Did I agress you ? You did not provide any evidence that something was wrong. If it is wrong on your smartphone, because it is antique and represents a few users for a device that cannot be found elsewhere (or is no longer supported, open to many more unsolvable problems because it no longer has any support), meaning your case is not reproductible, this is a problem of you only.

Long vertical lists in pages with very wide blank margins are very boring, and not more accessible if it requires scrolling down and down for links that were initially related and grouped logically together. There are already better ways to do that, and your "solution" is just a lazy one basically used for 1st time editing or temporary changes that will be removed. That page was there since long and referenced already. And in fact you did not add any useful thing to it, and want to spend time on things that were solved since long.

And yes we care about keeping the site usable in all languages and as much as possible in sync, and standardizing the navigation without surprize, using reusable tools (removing this unification is just returning to the state this wiki was 2 years, ago: not navigatable, hard to search info, largely unmaintained contents because of its severe fragmentation. Unification plays a role to build a community even with those for which you don't understand the language (this wiki has translators that can create the links, nobody is alone here). And you've still not proven that something was broken.

Translatibility and easier maintenance allowing incremental construction is part of the goal. This wiki has guidelines you should read (this documentation allopws finding contents, creating links that go to the expected target, allow sorting the content, even if a translation is not available for now.

Nothing is perfect but there are many people invoilved and a long history of discussions and why things are done or not done. Basically it requires long days of work to solve solutions, but here you just assert there's a problem and don't show which one it is, just drop content and rewrite, in my opinion this is just loss of time for everyone including you.

Even if nothing is perfect it does not mean that the content must not be organized, and we have to facilitate the work that remains to do and avoid breaking was is already done (even if it's not fully finished, sometinh that will in fact never happen as all will continue to evolve, including the tools used here or the way to access this information).

This wiki is used most often with an editor, and a small smartphone is not the best way to use a wiki and make its content evolve. This wiki is intended mostly for OSM editors and at least they use a tablet. Some kinds of contributions are made with dedicated mobile apps, but they take the wiki as a source which is reprocessed by the mobile app. Standard Web browsers in small smratphones are in fact very poor on all sites except if they are specifically designed with a mobile interface (which is still not the case of this one), and the content is relatively static and has a single source. This wiki lacks the tools needed to create multiple UIs for different devices. The tabs that were in that page were correct on most devices, and still usable even if it evntually required scrolling a few pixels horizontally; now we have to scroll down full pages, this is not a progress. And links packed in a vertical bulleted list are difficult to press on a mobile: you have to zoom in to select the correct one (this was not necessary with the tabs which were intended for fast navigation). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What exactly did I say that was a personal attack and aggressive? Everything I have said is based on facts and what the wiki actually says. Except maybe the one comment at the end, which might of been phrased better. If anything, you are being personal by bringing up my lack of edits and experience on this site etc etc as a way to discount my opinion on why should be changed. To me, that is pretty personal. Like I said, I have many edits on the map and when with people there who are new and make bad edits I go out of my way to see where they are coming from and discuss ways to compromise. That is not what you have been doing from the start of this conversation. You started out with "this is why it be how I say it" from the beginning, which is not a way to engage with someone fairly. In fact, your original use of a reversion could be seen as an aggressive one because there are many other none confrontational ways of changing things back to a point that satisfies you like sending me a message first and allowing me to change it back myself, taking time to see if I improve it on my own, or editing it yourself in a way that integrates both of our requests. You could of also started a discussion on the talk page about it and then changed it back or left it alone based on what the rest of the community decided. Your the one that brought it here though. Not me. In fact, if you had of done any of those other things, I actually would have been fine changing it back temporarily and spent some time researching how to update the style sheet thing to be more mobile user friendly and modern like you had originally posted about. I also would of been fine with both of us brain storming a better style guide or updating the editing rules to be less aggressive on its language for what type of edits are allowed. I wouldn't of minded if you had of used any of those options. But you decide not to. Instead you acted the way you did and used the lowest common self centered denominator and told me how it would be in a condescending presumptuous manor. So here we are. Its not on me that the guidelines for editing are vague and that the back end technology is old. I'm just working with the tools it provides. Your the one that has a problem with it. I was just editing a page to be how 99% of the other pages are. You have given me zero good reasons why those pages should be different than the other ones or what rule I actually broke. Your just going off about design theory endlessly because you know you have no other argument and my edits were perfectly within the rules. Your also assuming I wasn't going to change every other language page in the group to make things standard again, which I actually was, but you didn't give me time to do. Screw it now though. Your presumptuous blathering makes me less inclined to care. There's no reason me or anyone else should put extra time and care into making sure things look good just to be talked down to by a single user who thinks they run the place and who doesn't value other peoples time and work they put into things.

Also, everything you have said is based on judgmental assumptions, like I have already said about your perception of my lack of experience. Also, not that it is any of your business or relevant to the discussion, but I happen to have a two year-old pretty modern expensive phone. So that has nothing to do with it. Obviously I would of accounted for that if it was an older one. Not to mention, I already stated that I read the guidelines, I never said I didn't care about cohesion on the platform, don't know about fragmentation etc etc. Once again, those are your straw man, circular reasoning assumptions. "He didn't read the rules and has an old phone. So I must be right. Ah ha." I actually said multiple times I read the rules, guidelines etc already. I can even quote you specific lines I used as a reference before I did the edit. I also said if you want to quote a part of them that I violated feel free and I'll say I am wrong. Which you haven't done. Instead you have gone off on theoretical design scenarios and side tangents. So I think your the one that haven't read them. In fact, everything you have said is based on your own opinions and what you want. Nothing you have said is based on anything having to do with how the wider community or how the rules say they want things. Your whole thing about how "we didn't ask you to change things" is essentially just you who didn't ask for things to be changed. And like I said before, your not admin and you don't run the site. Plus 99% of the pages here are not in the style you claim is the best one. So your opinion is mute. Scrolling down doesn't work for you, great. Then edit the design guidelines to be clearer on how the pages should be and do the back end work to update the style system to your liking. That's the great thing about this. Remove sentences from the wiki like "OpenStreetMap aims to be accessible to all" or "the wiki should be arranged to allow people to easily find the content they are looking for" or "Work is needed to ensure that this navigation is still working effectively for new visitors" which I'm sure includes mobile users, which wasn't my only stated use case anyway, despite your ranting. Later down "categories should be used to group pages by type which should follow the same naming conventions as with wiki pages." I see nothing there about grouping similar pages with tabs. There's also "the purpose of the clean up project is to maintain a clear, well written, linked and accessible wiki" and I have already stated multiple reasons why the tab system used in this particular instance is neither clear or well written.

I also never said I have a problems with a tab system in general. The way wikipedia does it is fine. The articles main body text still word wraps and is more user friendly. Its this particular situation. on this website. Therefore, your making into a wider discussion about the pros and cons about tabs systems when that has nothing to do with it. Also, "ensuring that all content created on the wiki by numerous individuals on many subjects in many languages integrates into a coherent whole" having four pages that are formatted completely different from 99% of the other pages simply because you say it should be that way is in no way coherent. I'll end with this "We aim to build a user friendly wiki that helps OpenStreetMap contributors and users find the information they need quickly and easily. If you can help, please feel free to edit this wiki. Our general advise is to be bold - if a page can be improved, go forth and do it!" The thing about people finding information quickly and easily aside since I have already gone over that add ad nauseum, notice this part in particular "be bold - if a page can be improved, go forth and do it!" If you don't like that aspect of the guidelines and you think everyone should follow yours or kiss your ring before editing instead, feel free to edit the page to state as much and see how long it takes to get changed backed. Once again, I know the rules perfectly well. I was following them perfectly fine. And the edit was perfectly within the guidelines. I'm tired of having this discussion. Like I said before, if you want to stop straw manning and state where exactly in the guidelines I did something worthy of a revert or if you even want to walk this whole thing back and try some of the alternative options in my first paragraph to what you originally did go for it. I'm perfectly willing to meet you half way on it. Otherwise, I'm just going to continue what I am doing because there is clearly nothing wrong with it and it is also clearly the better option according to the guidelines etc etc.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and respond Adamant1 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Adamant1

P.S. its also pretty ironic and disingenuous that your trying to argue against a page being mobile friendly that is specifically discussing how to do something on a mobile device and will therefore be read by people using them. If there is a better example of self centered thinking out there, I don't know what it is. There was a good quote I read the other day that I think is really applicable here. It went something like "You should design web pages for the users use case, not yours." Your clearly not doing that. If you think a wiki page discussing how to map in OSM on an old IBM 386 should be view-able on that type of screen, id agree with you. That's knowing your audience. Saying a page about how to do something on a mobile device shouldn't be easily view-able by people on mobile devices though is just none sense. That doesn't even include the large amounts of people who check the definition of tags etc while out mapping on their there mobile devices or use their phone as a supplement to GPS tracking. I do it all the time. It would be much harder for those people if everything was tabbed and not mobile friendly. Not only is whole assumption that this site is mostly used by people on PC's just wrong, its still no excuse to ignore what works good for people on mobile. Even if they were in the minority, which they clearly aren't. Really, at best you don't know what devices the people on here are using because that information is not available. So its just another thing you are probably wrongly assuming to push your way of doing things, like everything else you have said. In my opinion having things scroll down is the best middle ground for both PCs and mobile users. Is it the best option? probably not, but it is at least better than tabs, which is clearly shown by the vast majority of pages on here that are designed that way. If most of the pages here were tabbed or if this was the 90s and mobile users were not a thing, id be just as inclined to design a page that way. I am not ideologically slanted one or another on it like you seem to be. Nor do I think there is a "best" way like you seem to. That's just not how these things work.

Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Adamant1

But you've still not shown what was the problem. You just say there's a problem but do not say which one precisely. I've not seen any one on mobiles. And you think that your change is more friendly to users for their use cases (in fact just yours), and I'm convinced the exact opposite, and you want to introduce maintenance costs for someting that was maintained on a single place for related pages grouped together logically for the same topic. You're just brekaing existing links to hide related pages that were created managed as a group by other people than just just you and me. They wanted to have these pages closely related, now they are detached... And you've strill not added any content or improvement, and made the navigation worse (and even the usability). I don't understand why your change is really better or why you decided to ungroup these pages, for an alleged problem that was not demonstrated at all. — Verdy_p ^(talk) 03:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

---

I stated plenty of reasons why its a problem. You just don't think they are adequate. In the mean time, I've also more than clear that I am not trying to stick it in the eye of PC users like you are trying to insinuate. I've said neither option is optimum, but at least it would be better and fit the format of the other pages on the site. Their format shouldn't matter anyway, because I am not editing those pages. I don't care if the main page has tabs. Even though it looks like crap and makes it hard to find information. That could just be me though. I take particular issue with these particular pages being formatted to work better on PC, something that you said in the first place, because they are specifically pages about how to do something on a mobile device. And yes, I only have one device that I am using to test it with, but A. it has the same screen resolution that modern phones do. So I can pretty well assume it would look the same on other devices B. The rest of the pages on this wiki and Wikipedia all use the modern drop down scrolling method. If tabs worked great and were perfectly acceptable, there is no reason they would of adapted the new system. Things change and improve. So I don't even know why your arguing it.

Yes, people made it that way originally, but it was a pretty long time ago, devices have changed, and I'm sure they did it with the knowledge that the format would be improved as the technology improved. That's life. I also know there is a larger group than you and I, but using that logic, there is no reason your opinion should technically take precedents over mine that larger group. Plus, like I said before, I spent time researching if there was a forum for the wiki or a good style guide before I did my edits and there just isn't. There isn't even a good editor forum for Wikipedia and some of their guides are pretty ambiguous. Look how many people use that site. So I don't know. All I can go by is what the information here does say is allowed and what I did was allowed. Its not like I was going to send a bunch of people messages asking for permission first. So I don't know what you expect. As far as breaking links and stuff goes, I put a list of related links at the bottom of each page that referenced all the other ones. So I don't even know how that would have been the case. If it was though, there is no reason why could not have messaged me to let know so I could of fixed it myself. As I've said more than once, whatever issue you had with my edit, you were free to write me and let me know about it so I could of fixed it on my own before you reverted me. I would of been happy to correct my own errors. It would of avoided this whole back and forth to. I don't know what your talking about with maintenance costs either. All the pages are still their own separate pages that are edited individually etc even if they do share tabs. Tabs don't magically make them a single page that is somehow cheaper and easier to manage. If anything, it makes maintenance worse because the tags and their associated standard tab page have to be maintained along with the normal information.

Also, as far as the pages of different translations go, I considered that ahead of to and did a bunch of research on it to. Its my understanding from the pages on the subject that each translated page is its own autonomous entity and that whoever edits it is allowed to have disparities with the same pages in other languages. Would it be good if they all matched? probably, but its just unrealistic and also is not required. If anything the information the wiki does give about it makes it sound like its encouraged if they are unique. I can think of plenty of instances off the top of my head where pages in different languages might want to have different text or formats than each other. Either way, if someone in Korea wants their page to match the one in English, its on the people who upkeep that page do the administrative duties so it should match. Its not that we shouldn't consider them if we are doing a major edit, but I don't think it should be the deciding factor. Its probably not for them either.

Although you are correct that I have not edited those pages at all since the original thing, I have edited other ones and there's an obvious reason why. There's really no reason to make any more changes on those pages, spell checking or anything more in depth, until we come to an agreement on things. Otherwise I would just be discounting your opinion off hand which I don't think is fair to you. Since your taking the time to discuss it with me. Also, there's no point in editing it if your just going to revert me again. I am more than willing to wait a week or two until we get this figured out and do more research if I have to. I'm also willing to admit I'm wrong and abandon the whole thing if a better argument can be made. It just hasn't been yet.

Let me pose this Scenario that actually happens to me sometimes. Someone is on their cell phone in portrait mode recording a GPX track in a navigation app, they don't know how to upload it though. So they open chrome and look up how to do it on here. Then they have to either flip their phone to landscape, scroll back and forth repeatedly to read the information because only three or four lines display on the screen at one time and it doesn't even word wrap, while try to follow the multi step process. Then switch back to portrait mode, re open the other app, and try to remember what the steps where, which is hard because they were distracted by the constant left and right scrolling and having to keep up. Then they forget a step and have to do the whole tilt/open/scroll up-down-left-right/tilt/load process again. That's you think its is easy. Now compare that to this. They are recording in the original app in portrait mode, they switch to chrome, search, load the page, scroll down, read, switch back and do it. Or, if they forget a step they just switch back and read it and then switch back again. There's no turning the orientation of the phone multiple times or scrolling left and right on top of already scrolling up and down. Not to mention if their phone has multi tasking, which mine does, than they could just have both apps open at the same time in portrait mode, which shows the same amount of information as landscape does in half the space, and just keep chrome open as a reference while they use the navigation app. Something they would not be able to do in landscape. I do it all the time. Its much easier. There's plenty of phones now that allow that kind of thing. So that's one of the reason's why its easier.

It shouldn't of been on me to explain it anyway. As I've said already, its on you to explain to the revert, not me to explain my edit. At least my reasons for changing it make more sense than your's for not. The only two things I can even make out about your argument so far that wasn't just made up shill things like my phone being old, that most people on here use computers, or that I wasn't going to make sure the pages matched each other, when you don't factually know any of those things is that A. You don't like having to scroll down more, which you still have to do a lot of with tabs, and B. It should stay that way because that's how someone in the past made it. C. It might break the theme with other pages. None of those are valid arguments though for the multiple reasons I have already given multiple times. Like I said before, I'm agnostic on this. Ultimately I don't care one way or the other how the page looks, except that I haven't been given adequate evidence that it would work better the other way. Where as your just being ideological about it, like your argument that the tabs should stay because someone put them there in 2007.

Personally, I'm willing to acknowledge that a lot of these types of issues are caused by problems with the platform. If the wiki was updated to be more modern or if there was a clear style guide that was easy to find, with clear guidelines and some standardization maybe it wouldn't be a problem. That's not my fault though. Id be more than willing to contribute to those happening, but A. its a little above my expertise B. There would just be a bunch of resistance to it anyway C. I wouldn't even know where to start either. But like I said before, if you want to work on the guidelines, the cleanup section, and other similar stuff in order to reign in "people like me" and push how you think the wiki should be, feel free. I would %100 support you in that effort. In the mean time though. This whole thing on your part is pretty superfluous and there's no reason why your opinion should take precedence over mine. Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Adamant1

P.S. is there anywhere on here that lists the rules for the circumstances of when a revert can be used and what procedures should be followed before, like messaging the person? Or is it just that anyone can revert anything they feel like whenever they want without issue? Because I know there are rules about it on Wikipedia, which mostly seem to be ignored. I think if you reverted me without proper cause or without following the rules that's more important than my deep philosophical reasons for editing something, especially since the revert was why this conversation was initiated in the first place. Therefore your potential miss use of the revert system is the main thing here in my opinion. Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Adamant1

Verdy p, I responded to someone on the talk page for the article Recording GPS tracks about the same things we are discussing here. Although I don't necessarily feel like being ganged up on, if you want to read my comment there and respond with some actual substantive counterpoints that are clear about why you think tabs are better, outside of just saying vacuous things like "Your phones old" or "because I say so" id appreciate it. It would be good going forward if future discussions having to do with particular articles were done on their respective pages, where other people can give their opinions to. Thank You.

Why you are editing private pages?

Especially deleting content from talk pages like at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R45h33d&curid=38857&action=history ? I am also surprised by edits like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Inetis/OnlyWaterRules&curid=55772&action=history Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

UUmmmm, as far as talk pages go, it was something I was avoiding and that I generally think shouldn't be done, but then most if not all of the talk pages related to Kosmos where just direct copies of a main page about it. So I wasn't deleting anything that was unique or couldn't just be cut and pasted back in if need be. Plus, most of those user pages are from like 2010 and I doubt the people are around anymore. Also, I looked around for a rule about deleting user page content and I couldn't find one. So, well I might agree its disturbing to do in general, if there is no guideline about it, than I don't know. I used Wikipedia guidelines as a fall back though at least. It seems to be fine to do there. So I figured, why not here? Since its based on the system and there is a lot of overlap. I do think the lack of guidelines on this wiki for basic things like that or when a revert is ok are troubling and should probably be provided somewhere. Otherwise, a lot of unnecessary arguments happen and stuff gets deleted that shouldn't. Usually if no guideline is given, people will just do what they feel like. Even if it is the wrong thing. I'm not unique in that. I also thought if it was that big of a deal that the moderator could just undue it when they came by to delete the page. There was also nothing mentioned on the cleanup project about what pages shouldn't and shouldn't be deleted if they are part of a cleanup project. So...

As far as the other thing goes, why is that one particularly surprising? To me its no different than the other ones and the same reason I gave above applies to it. In general, I want to do anything that breaks the rules. So if I you think I shouldn't be deleting user page content and if there is a good guideline about it somewhere I can read, feel free to say so and I'll stop doing it from now on. Even in cases where the content is completely worthless and can easily be found in other places if need be. Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally I would considered user pages as special - user pages should not be linked from main space articles, user pages that should be edited only by associated users, even if content is outdated or wrong (except cases like spam etc) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. So I won't edit them anymore. Thanks for the advice.

I note that you have changed my private page imputing beliefs and actions to me which I do not have. The remarks on the page may be dated, but it is for me to change them, not you. Please desist. SK53 (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

SK53, first changing a link on your page has nothing to do with your beliefs or actions. Plus, it is obvious from the change history that I did it and you were able to change it back pretty easy. Second, next time you decide to comment in an already occurring discussion, at least take the time to read through the comments in it before you do. If you had of, you would of seen that I said it was mistake to edit user pages and that I won't be doing it again. So, thanks for wasting my time with your pointless addition to the conversation, but its already been dealt with. Just piling it on is not going to convenes me not to edit users pages anymore than Konieczny already has with his thoughts on it. So just save it next time. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

signing help (one more overcomplicated technical thing - sorry)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tips/How_to_sign_comments - it is from Wikipedia, but is applies to any Wiki running on the same software Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Archives are to be kept

is an universal Wiki rule!--Constantino (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

What archive did I get rid of and where does it say it on here that its the case? Because I couldn't find any rule about it when I looked, and I find it hard to believe there are universal wiki rules when everyone seems to use Wikipedia as a source but only when it suites them and then ignores rules from it that doesn't. So, I don't think that's such a clear thing. For instance, there is no rule about editing talk pages on here, but Wikipedia says its ok. So then I did it and a bunch of people got pissed off about it. So there doesn't seem to be as daylight when it comes to rules between the Wikis as you portray. I'm not asking because I think your wrong or anything. I am just kind of new at this and I would like to avoid future issues. So Id appreciate a more in-depth explanation of what you mean and a citation to an official place that says the same. Thank you. Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop blanking

Pages about deprecated tags should not be blanked. Deprecated tag page should explain why tag should not be used.

Especially, do not blank pages in languages that you do not understand Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I can understand leaving an explanation about why the tag shouldn't be used, but a lot of the pages I blanked had rules about how to still use the tag. Which just encourages people. Its important to have the depreciated symbol and information on the right side panel to instead of just having a little red notice half way down it. Like landuse=pond for instance. The could be said for the power=sub_station tag which has around 20000 thousands uses. New mappers wont necessarily scroll down to see the little red area and will glance over it and decide to use it anyway. Further, most of the other depreciated tags where already blanked. So I was only following already established procedure. Also, just having a little thing that says the page is depreciated without having the banner doesn't add it to the depreciated tags category. A lot of the pages I added the banner to weren't in one and now they are potentially taken out of it again. So there's that to.

As far as translation pages goes, Google Chrome has a translate function that works quit well. Plus in most cases they are just copies of the America page. So id hardly say I have no understanding of the pages. The ones that weren't clear though, I left alone and its not like everyone else doesn't screw around with pages that aren't in their main language anyway. For instance 99% of the crap Verdy_P does isn't in French and I don't see anyone caring. Sorry, but I'm not here to get chastised for things most other people do and everyone edits pages in languages they aren't dominate in.

Finally, if you could contact me before you revert a bunch of my edits next time id really appreciate it. There might be reasons I did them that are legitimate, which you just happened to miss. I don't feel like edit warring over things or having my work undone by someone that just has a different opinion about something then I do either. Especially considering there isn't anything anywhere saying depreciated pages can't be blanked and it was already done a massive amount of times before I came along. So now I'm stuck going with your opinion since you reverted me even though your way might be wrong, or I'm edit warring if I change them again how I think it should be. Which isn't fare to me. Talking to someone before destroying their work is always a better way to go.

Thanks

I am not against deleting parts that encourage using tag that should not be used. But for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dfishmonger&diff=prev&oldid=1622077 had an useful historic info that should be kept (maybe updated), not deleted. The whole point of Wiki is to document how ad why tags are used to avoid repeating the same discussions 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I can understand where your coming from. I started editing the wiki because I keep seeing people make the same mistakes over and over on the map. So I agree its important to maintain information if that is of historical value. So there wont be repeated problems or disscussions. Its hard to tell what is worth saving or not, and it seems like most dissussions about how particular pages should be modified go nowhere and there arent good guidelines to follow either. So I rather just cut through the jungle and get things done. Even if it means a few mistakes. I apologize if I got rid of something that should have stayed in the proccess though. Considering this and the user page debacle I could probably be a little less gung ho with my edits. Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately nothing wrong happened (except that first I got a bit irritated and later you got in turn irritated after I reverted part of your edits) - reverting and looking at history in wiki is much easier than OSM database. "seems like most dissussions about how particular pages should be modified go nowhere" - yes, and it is hard to balance between avoiding useless discussion and avoiding big undiscussed edits. And there is plenty of wrong or missing documentation on wiki that should be fixed... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Blanking" second round

I second Mateusz. Please stop blanking pages of old proposals, like Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant, Proposed_features/agricultural_access, Proposed_features/emergency_vehicle_access. Please do not use Template:delete if the page has content is not empty and orphaned page. Use Template:delete proposal instead because that proposal is a call for discussion.

The proposals whose pages have been blanked by you have been marked as rejected. The labelling as rejected is enough to inform readers about the status of the tag. In some cases an additional Template:ambox at the top might stress the rejection (see motorcycle_friendly as an example). In addition to that, the their talk pages and the votes on the main page of the proposal contain comments by other users explaining their decision in favour or against the proposal. You delete the archive of tagging descisions by deleting these pages.

That's why I ask you to revert your blanking. --Nakaner (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nakaner, first, I am not "blanking pages." I'm putting a deletion request up on the pages. Which is within my right to do. Its unfortunate that it requires the content being temporary vacated from the page, but I didn't create the delete template and the content is still there in the history and can be recovered. Second, 99% of the pages I put the template on either had no content, discussion, or if it did have those things they were worthless. Just because a page has letters and paragraphs on it doesn't mean that its of value. Its not like I didn't consider that when I was putting up the deletion requests. Further, 99% of the proposals I did it to hadn't been edited or up dated in ten years. Yes, I could of put a deletion request up first, but it would of took another ten years for anyone to come along and give a crap. As is evidenced by the multiple pages I have come across with six or seven year old deletion requests that never get addressed. I'm not into discussion that never goes anywhere either and that seems to be the preferred way of doing things around here. I have better things to do.

Also, the fact that there has no edits or discussion on a page for ten years is an indicator that know one cares about it. Especially if they only have one edit to start with and zero discussions. I'd also add that despite your and Mateusz complaints, there have been multiple pages I have put requests on that have been deleted and there have many pages that where not deleted that I removed the label myself from after a few weeks of being ignored by the admins. So if the page should be deleted it will be and if not I usually deal with it and reverse the deletion request myself. Having a random empty page blanked for a week is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Having a bunch of worthless pages are confusing to navigate and serve no purpose is a little bit more of one and more people have said the wiki could use some cleaning and reorganizing then you and the two others that have complained about my actions, in to vague of a way to be productive.

In general, I don't appreciate vague attacks involving all my edits. Some have merit and some probably don't. I'm not going to stop what I'm doing though based on a vague command of "not blanking pages" by you, Mateusz, or anyone else. I have as much right to use the tools of the wiki how I see fit as you guys do and if it doesn't break the rules there's no reason I should stop doing it. If you have a specific complaint about specific pages fine. There's always the discussion pages of those deletion proposals where you can air your grievances about those particular pages. Like the deletion proposal says to do. If you have a specific issue with those particular pages you cited, fine. Delete the "blanking" on those specific pages and put up a deletion request. I don't really care. I'll just come back in a few months after the deafening silence because know one really cares and "blank" the page again. Then the pages can be reviewed by an admin and they can decide whats worth deleting or not like its their job to do. Sometimes progress involves risk, temporary setbacks, and getting attacked by people who are anti progress. I'm willing to accept that. The vast majority of deletion proposals are perfectly valid though and they will be deleted just most of the other ones I proposed for deletion where and I am going to keep doing it where I feel like its appropriate. I talked to an admin about the whole thing a few times too and he generally agreed with me. So its not like I'm just running rick shod all over the wiki without any thought like you and Mateusz act.

Thanks for the comment though. Next don't come right out of the gate with the attacks or bossing me around though. Also, stick to specifics. Otherwise, its not going to be productive. I have better things to do then defend myself endlessly on things that are so general there is no way to satisfy the other person except by kowtowing and stopping what I'm doing completely, which I'm not going to do. I also don't respond well to being told what to do. Especially by someone I don't know in the first message they send me. It's just condescending, unnecessary, and there's really no particular reason I should listen to you anyway. At least with Mateusz we had little bit of report established from other places before he started in. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Adamant1, I consider both your actions as well as the language in your long rant above inappropriate. Nobody is 'attacking' you. Burning the history of pages (or preparing the same) is not 'progress'. Have you discussed this kind of cleaning with the community somewhere, before your started it? In particular after you had bee criticised for deleting large numbers of User pages, just a month ago? What are you proposing next? Are you going to the National Library and put all books on a stack to be burned, that have not been touched over the last ten years? Are you going to a museum and smash all artefacts because they are no longer being used? --Polarbear w (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Why do you blank pages anyways? Blanking pages gives no benefit to you, me, or anyone on the wiki. Archiving them is a much better idea. Trust me, you don’t want a whole community of OSMers attacking you over something very trivial that you’re doing which gives no benefit to anyone. I’ve been through it. — EzekielT (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@EzekielT: Thanks for the question. Why don't read the answers I already gave multiple times here and in other places though? I'll still answer you. Even though I don't think its worthy of an answer in first place. Since its obviously a stupid question and primiss. First though, how do you know it has no benifit? Since when do you talk for or know the wishes of everyone on this wiki? There are way more people that think the wiki needs cleaning up and reorganizing then there are the bandwaggoning, antiprogess, bullies on this talk page who rather harrase me here instead of making an arguement on any individual for why it should stay. That's becausae they know they have no real arguement, are just fear mongering, and will be ruled against. Let them act like bullies though. I respect their right to be that way. I'm just not giving into it because it just inboldens them to act that way more. Nothing is more destructive and toxic to a project then this kind of thing. As much as they claim I'm anti history etc, they are doing way more to destroy this project and diswayed people from contributing to it with their attituteds then I am by requesting a few outdated pages be deleted.

As far as why I don't just archive pages, it would really depended on the page and its not like I didn't consider that. A lot of them didn't have anything worth archving though and a lot also already had requests for them to be deleted. How come the miniorty of antiprogress goons here channel their fake rage into archiving the articles in the first place or go harrase the people who originally requested the page be deleted? I shouldn't have had to do it in the first place. Let alone should I have to deal with their attitudes when they are the ones that slacked off on basic maintance of the wiki in the first place. At least I'm trying to do something about it instead of doing nothing except blowing out hot air.

Also, a bunch of the pages I have requested be deleted have been. The people above either ignore that fact outright, call it a fluke, or just insult the admins instead of just admiting they are wrong and moving on with their lives. Again, why should I give in to that kind of behavoir? I create the delete templete in the first place either. so its not on me for using a tool the wiki provides. If they have such a problem with it, they should ask the DWG to ban the ability to delete pages. We'll see how that goes. Archving pages doesn't deal with the underlining reasons I started requesting pages be deleted in the first place either, like abandoned proposals coming up in searches before the pages for the correct tags do, here and on Google Search, the over complication of keeping the pages around causes new editors looking through the wiki, etc etc etc. None of those things have been addressed at all. Although as I have said, most of the pages didn't contain anything usefully historically or otherwise anyway and had already been requested for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Polarbear w: Actually, people did attack me. Verdy_P has gone as far as saying my degree is worthless and that everything I do is worthless. Among a bunch of other things. Matuesz also requested on OSM-Talk that other editors gang up to convience me not request pages be deleted, something I consider borderline harrasement, and insulted the administrators for deleting some of the pages I requsted be deleted. Further, I did disscuss it ahead of time with multiple people. There are more people that think the wiki should be cleaned up, that the pages cause problems with searching, and don't help new mappers then there are the anti progress bandwagoners. Also, a lot of those pages didn't have any content in them anyway or there was already requests they be deleted. That being said, my tone above could have been better and I sent the person an apology message. Its not like you accussing me of beeing an iconoclast, book burning heretic for requesting a few obscure pages be deleted is any better though. In fact, I have a sociology degree that was heavy in historical studies and my carrier is dependent on combing through old books etc. Plus I spent most of childhood in libraries because my parents were to poor and sick most of the time for me to indulge in any other activities. Asking pages be deleted has zero to do with it though and its utter obsered you or anyone else would use that kind of fear mongering as a tactic to sway my opinion. Outside of that, read my message above this one for the actual reasons for putting up the deletion proposals and maybe next you message me show enough respect to leave your overly privlaged, pompous opinions about my lack of respect for history, and knee jerk crap at the door. Its not productive, majorly insulting, simply wrong, and I'm tired of hearing it. Also, as I've told everyone else, if you have actual issue with any particular page being deleted, bring it up in that page so it can be disscussed by other people in the community. None of you will though because you know it wont go your way and if you don't like pages being deleted, ask the DWG to ban the ability to do it. See how far you get with it. Otherwise, stop harrasing me about it. I'm not going to play this game either where I have to be on perfect behavior or I'm the one with the attitude, while everyone else says whatever they want and treats me with utter disrespect whithout being called out for it.

@Adamant1: What I think I meant to say was that it isn’t worth the fight. Deleting pages doesn’t really do much difference or help the wiki in a significant way and isn’t worth it. Give up in whatever you believe in. People such as User:Polarbear w and the others will always revert your actions until they are either gone from the planet forever or have left OSM. I’m serious. — EzekielT (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@EzekielT: Oh OK. I guess your right. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and believed they would be willing to listen to reason. I was clearly though. I also keep seeing the same issues pop up on the map repeatedly and get into a lot of arguments with editors there who use the problems with the wiki as an excuse to justify their bad edits. So I thought improving things here would help there and I had more respect for people like Polarbear w originally then I did random mappers. So I thought him and others would be easier to deal with. Your probably right though that it doesn't ultimately make a difference and that they will just reverting me. The loudest people in the room always seem to get their way. Even if they are in the minority and completely in the wrong. I'll probably find other ways to deal with things or just spend more time in the real world for a while. Its disappointing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting proposal pages

Hi, I noticed that you have recently added Template:Delete to several proposal pages. However, even unsuccessful proposals serve as a historical record of the community's decision making process; they may be archived, but should usually not be deleted. One example is Proposed features/parking aisle, which was put to a vote and rejected by the community – a fact that I believe should remain recorded on the wiki. --Tordanik 16:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have also used the abandoned / rejected proposal pages as a guide to look further for a tag that's already in use. For example thinking "highway=boat_ramp" but ending up with "leisure=slipway". MikeN (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tordanik. You make a good point. A lot of the proposals I asked for deletion where extremely old and had no comments. A few weren't though and did. On those ones I wasn't aware that archiving was an option and I was originally doing this as a way to maybe help lower the amount of bad tagging I have seen on the map. So I weighed the quality of the comments with if the pages being there would contribute to low quality mapping. Some of them I imagine are rather misleading to new mappers if they come up in searches for key terms or something. Plus there was discussion I was reading about how ID editor will still recommend outdated not used tags if there is still a wiki page for them. Archiving the pages instead in those situations might be a better option though. Although I don't know if it helps Id editor, at least it will better deter new mappers from using the tags. So I appreciate you bringing it to my attention as option and fixing the few pages that needed it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. on the zip line main page it says it is de facto in the approved green. So I am miss interpreting the meaning of that or should it be changed to "in use"? Also, is there never a point where something gets accepted by the community without going to a vote? It seems a little wrong to say a tag is not approved even if it has thousands of users by hundreds of editors and is being rendered on the main map just because it hasn't been approved by three people on a talk page. Plus it potentially pollutes the proposal categories with a bunch of false positives. Id like to know your thoughts on it to MikeN. Thanks --Adamant1 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"approved" means approved by voting, not by use. "in use" means many people use the tag. That is a clear distinction that should be kept to understand the processes. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I kind of understand that, but it seems like a superficial distinction at this point. Since they are both just essentially the same form of use consensus, although with different mechanism. Plus, it seems like voting isn't really in vogue anymore. Not to mention "in use" versus "approved" versus "proposed" have different connotations. "Widely in use" should be at the same level as approved in meaning and weight, but it is currently lower then proposed. It makes it hard to have conversations with regular/new editors about their tagging methods and edits on the actual because in the "real world" the distinction is pointless. People, especially new editors, just go with what sounds good or comes up in ID editor. There's no distinction made, nor would they care about it if there is. I wouldn't be bringing it up in the first place and I don't expect you to solve the problem, but it still causes major quality issues and a lot of pointless discussions that could otherwise be avoided. Plus 99% of the users of open street maps don't use the wiki anyway except superficially, let alone involve themselves in the voting process. I understand the reasons why voting was created originally, but it seems the world has mostly moved on, and I think at this point tagging usage, tag documentation, etc etc should be based on more of an organic system that takes into account the wider audiences this map caters to and not just a few wiki coders. The wiki should serve and aid the map. Not the other way around. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The two base proposition of your arguments, voting isn't really in vogue and 99% of the users ... don't use the wiki lack any evidence, they are purely invented from your personal opinion. That renders the conclusions you draw invalid. --Polarbear w (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

First, I agree my tone above was inapropriate. He had also sent me another message accusing of me using bots to automotic edits though because I committed the sin of modifying 100 tags over a short period of time. So there was more going on. That doesnt excuse my behavior though and I sent him an apology. That being said its pretty easy to jump into the end of the conversation that had nothing to do with you and throw around accusations, like that I'm a book burning, icono clast heritic that has no respect for history. Yet I'm the one with the attitude. On that accusation, I happen to have a degree in sociology. Getting it and my carrier is heavly dependent on history. So its a completely accusation for that reason. Not to mention I my justification what I'm doing had zero to do with history or anything related to it and I said multiple times that I was fine with people modifying my edits and that I would change my strategy. So I dont even know what the point in your messages are except to pile on the crticism ive already recived multiple times. And yet, I have the attitude.

Second, you dont know what I am basing my propsostion about voting on and I could just as easily so you dont know either. So thats really an argument for anything and is just pointless mud slinging. Maybe next you could show some of the manors your attacking me for not having by asking me what I am basing things I say on, instead of just discounting it off hand. I admit I could be over estimating and maybes its more like %75 or something. I doubts its that low though. I could give you specific examples, but then youd just find some other way to discount it by nit picking some minor detail. Thats fine. Ultimately though, I'm just doing exactly what other people have done and its with in the rules. Like ive said to others, your free to disscuss the merrits of each page in the their disscussions or just revert me if you feel its meritted and in the mean I'll improve my strategy. If you want to disscuss specifics or modify the rules to push your agenda, im fine with all that to and I'll follow whatever rule modifications are made. In the mean time though, I'm not going to spot what I'm doing becuase of some fake outrage and cries of book burning. I can also forward you and the ther perel clutchers the hundreds of messages/arguements I get in on the map because of the current state of the wiki. So you guys can deal with them. Since your the once that seem to be against progress and care more about "history" then map quality. I mostly started editing the wiki to maybe stem the arguements there, but its just led to arguements here. So I guess its worthless to try and make progress on either side. Lesson learned. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OSM-Talk comment about me

"OSM-Talk comment about me" - can you link the comment that you are mentioning here? I am not remembering making one (this is response to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&diff=1632791&oldid=1618561 ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk)

Mateusz: Apparently Adamant1 is so surprised that, despite the length of his essays, hardly anyone is convinced by his deletion concepts, he feels that opposition from the community is 'ganging'. Probably he refers to this message on the talk list, which contains a reference to your name but is not authored by you. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Polarbear w:, thanks again for jumping on the back of another conversation you had nothing to do with in the first place and contributing nothing to it. Is really that surprising I got one thing wrong while juggling 7 different conversations all involving the same stupid questions I already answered repeatedly? Sorry my answers weren't concise enough for you, but last time I checked this is my talk page and I can write things here how I wan't. At the end of the day your comments aren't constructive and are just adding to the noise. So, do me a favor and get off my talk page now. Feel free to waste my time more by harassing me on changeset comments like you have been though if you want. Its not like I don't better things to do then defend myself over and over on perfectly fine edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Polarbear w:, P.S. also feel free to read the two comments on that osm talk page saying I did nothing wrong, that the wiki could use cleaning up, and giving the same reasons for it that I gave. Along with my discussion with SomeoneElse on his talk page and Verdy_P's talk page where he said the exact same thing. There is also a discussion on the OSM forum about the short comings of the proposal process and how it needs to be changed also. Out side of you and the few other loud people here, the rest of the community clearly disagrees with you. Including EzekielT above. No to mention there was only two responses to the talk page comment and they both disagreed with you. So if this such a huge issues that everyone is against like you claim where is the outcry by everyone else? While you wait for it, Have fun pushing your bias opinion as if it is that of the communities in general. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to prevent edit war

@Adamant1: You started blanking pages again... User:Polarbear w and the others are gonna get angry at you again, and will definitely start reverting everything you did again. I'm not necessarily saying that I want that to happen, I'm just stating the inevitable (or so I thought :D?). — EzekielT (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@EzekielT: Its true I did. You could very well be right. Maybe I would of stopped if they had given me a compelling reason to, but "Don't do it, it makes me angry" just doesn't do it for me and I feel like I have already crossed the Rubicon as it were. I did also discuss it with an administrator though when it happened before and they said if I get reverted for a none reason that I can report it to the DWG and they will talk to the person. Plus, I found out Mateusz Konieczny had talked to another administrator about it who mostly sided with me and advised him not to revert me. I think part of the reason they are making such a huff on my page and didn't revert me start with or just report me is because they know they don't have anything. There's also plenty of pages they have requested be deleted in the past that where exactly the same as the ones I am doing it with. Which is also why keep deflecting from talking about any particular page or any policy I am breaking. So we will see how it goes I guess. I spent like six months arguing with Verdy_p over this thing and he kept threatening to contact a mod. Then when I finally did, he was the one that got told off and I ended up being right. It might go that way again. If not though, I've gone to far to back down ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

amenity=advertising

@Adamant1: In some case, at least in France, we can have 'amenity=advertising'. Why ? Because we have been having regulations in France for more than 100 years, on 'outdoor advertising', and one disposition tells than every town in France needs to offer reserved space for 'free expression, and advertising for non-profit organizations'. Therefore specific boards have to be set in place in each town, and the number of these boards must be proportional with the size of the population, so that everyone can display its own posters to speak out, or so that non-profit organizations can make their advertizing. Commercial messages cannot be displayed on these boards, and private companies are not allowed to use theses boards. As a matter of fact 'advertizing' needs to be understood in a large way : 'everything (form, image, message) to inform the people or to attract its attention'. These cases of use 'amenity=advertising' are well explained in the franchh pag of advertising : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:advertising. I wanted to let you know that advertising can be considered as an amenity in these cases. And that chasing out all 'amenity=advertising' from OSM database should not be done blindly. I hope that, taking that into account, you can a little calibrate the comments introduced into this page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:advertising#Possible_tagging_mistakes I thank you very much for reading ~~Barnes38

@Barnes38: Thanks for the comment. I was actually sort of aware of that, which is why I didn't add it as a possible tagging mistake on the French advertising page. As it seems to be a cultural thing unique to France though, I have no issue making it a possible tagging mistake on other pages besides that one. In know way am I trying to purge out amenity=advertising from OSM by doing that though, just help nudge my more laissez faire English speaking comrades into better tagging method. The tags page does it is depreciated though. I guess that is the short comings of having tag status. Its hard to account for cultural differences with it maybe. I see there is no French page for amenity=advertising either, which is odd since you use it there. Perhaps you should make one and put a note on the others that although it is depreciated, it is still being used in your unique situation. Otherwise, the tag might get purged eventually someone else who stumbles on the page for it and thinks "Oh, there's 645 uses of a depreciated tag. Maybe I'll re-tag them, as its a lazy Sunday and I have nothing better to do." Plus, amenity=advertising doesn't render I assume. So it might be purged for that alone without a note.

Btw, it seems like 99% of the uses for amenity=advertising are in Germany or outer European countries other then France. So do you know if the same rules apply in those places too or is this another case of "You should keep this for my special circumstance. Even though I'm not even using it for that?" Its hard to make for keeping a tag around or not saying its depreciated when it is because of France when there's only 4 instances of it being used there. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on deletions

@Adamant1: see User_talk:EzekielT#Stop labelling pages for deletions!. — EzekielT (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@EzekielT: I haven't done it in like a year. I don't know why its coming up now. I can't stop doing something I'm not doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You did it again. It is nothing personal, we are just very conservative to delete anything except spam. You will find many more rewarding things to improve on this wiki. I have moved the discussion regarding the blowhole to my talk page (User talk:RicoZ) where it belongs. RicoZ (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

One, I don't appreciate the way you framed the discussion as what "we" do versus what I'm doing. It sounds pointlessly elitist and pedantic. There is no "we." Me and other editors who make edits you don't like are as much a part of the project as you are. Also, your assertion that "we are just very conservative to delete anything except spam" is completely wrong. As I said on Lyx's page more people were for deleting the pages then weren't originally (including multiple admins) and 99% of the pages were eventually deleted. The people against them where just the more vocal minority. Although, if you bothered to do the research you'd notice that they have also requested pages be deleted many times themselves, a lot of which weren't spam either.

The lesson learned here is, the next time you feel the need to lecture someone about what "we" do, maybe put the effort into seeing what it actually is "you" and "they"do first. Otherwise, you might be wrong like you are in this case. One more thing, I didn't "do it again" either. As I stated on Lyx's page, the deletions this time had nothing to do with the past ones and even they did, I have every right to do things more then once if I want to. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am hoping to do some productive work, not endlessly discuss deletions. If you prefer "I" than I will oppose any deletions that you propose. Nothing personal but it is too much hassle with zero gain to discuss deletions. RicoZ (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

As was I when you decided to initate this conversation by reverting me and leaving a message about it on my talk page. You could have decide instead to trust that I knew what I was doing or at least leave the decisions up to the admins who are more qulified then to decide these things. Just don't don't engage in things next time. It will be better for everyone involved. The less condescension the better. Ultimately, if you aren't willing to engadge in discussion on a community project, you probably shouldn't be involved in it. You should also say as much to Lyx on his talk page. Instead of giving the false impression that your balanced and fair about it. Otherwise, its massively disingenuous and contributes to these problems in the first place. -- Adamant1

Why should I trust you if you are constantly engaging in controversies and make trivial mistakes. RicoZ (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

1. A few angry people isn't a controvery. Its pretty easy to get a few people against anything. It has noyhing to do with the merits of the thing or not. Fake outrage is all the rage these days and its been the same vocal minority since this started like a year ago. So its not even plural. Everything I have said about the opinions of other users who agree with me can easily be found also. Whereas, know where on the wiki does it say the whole "preserve the history of osm at all costs" is a policy or anything.

2. I never said to trust me. I've repeatedly refrenced other users that agree with me and said we should follow what the admin say. Which I do even if they disagreed with me. Ultimately one persons opinion doesn't and shouldn't have ultimate say. Including my own. Its a group project and everyone that's not an admin or in the DWG is on an equal playing field as far as I'm concered. Im no better then you and I never claimed to be. The only thing i've really said from the start of this is that either admins should decided what gets deleted or not since its their job and or there should be discussion about it. Neither one of those things are controversal. The discussion was created due to the mistrust in letting the admins do their jobs. Not in me creating a deletion propsal. At least that's how I see it.

3. I'm not sure what mistakes your refrencing, but everyone makes them. If the standard to do something was zero mistakes, no one could do anything. As far as the delation propsals go though, whats worth saving or not is a matter of personal opinion in the absense of hard and fast rules. Just because you didn't think the page you reverted was worth deleting, doesn't mean I made a mistake by making the request. The main reason I wanted the discussion in the first place though was so we could come up with some guidelines of when its appropriate or not to delete pages. Which would then negaite the subjectiveness of this. If you look at the forum post by Tigerfell, you'll see that some pages where deamed utterly useless and requested for deletion by multiple people, including the people who originally created the propsals, and were still reverted by a single person, similar to the ones here. Things like that are not ok and it should be worked out. A single person shouldn't dictate the wiki. That's been my only arguement from the start. The issue wasn't created by my actions though. It was already going on. I'm just the person that decided to stand up for myself. There's been users who didn't though and just either took it or left the project. Neither of which I'm going to do. Nor should I. --- Adamant1

Please, stop trying to delete nonempty proposals

Yes, even outdated, replaced, pointless or useless. It is useful as an archive and prior art. Feel free to set status to Abandoned or add {{ambox|text=description of situation}}} headers linking to up to date documentation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Says you. Other people disagree and your opinion is clearly in minority. What makes your opinion superior? Blank pages don't have "art" anyway. I'm sure you didn't actually look at any of the pages your making statements about though. Instead of trying to push your agenda of how things should be, why not stop telling me what to do and participate in the discussion about it instead. Your free to discuss which specific pages might or might not be worth deleting, like both Woodpeck, Tigerfell, me and others suggest. Or are you unwilling to even have a conversation about it and actual specifics? It seems to me like you prefer to just ignore opinions that disagree with yours and push people around instead. Feel free to prove me wrong though. Its not like you don't request pages be deleted yourself either. [https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=736510#p736510 Here's the a link to forum post.

If your so in the right about it, go ahead and prove it by discussion it where other people can participate and disagree with you. Its telling you didn't even comment on Lyx's page. What, don't want to tell me what to do where there's more of a chance other people will see it? If your unwilling to actually have a conversation about it with other people who might disagree with you, this will never get resolved and I'll probably request more pages be deleted in the future (including the pages you did the unfounded reverts on). There's no rule against it. Nowhere in the wiki does it say any of the reasons you give for pages not being deleted either. Until it does, I'll do what I want. Thanks for trying to tell me what to do though. Your not even an administrator. There's zero reason I should even listen to you. Especially considering the trite, pushy, nonconstructive way your acting about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Please read and respond to the comment by Lyx on the bottom of his talk page. I think it proves my point, as it echos almost exactly what I have been saying on this. Other people here who have been criticizing my actions and telling me what to do would also benefit from considering it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I replied in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lyx&diff=prev&oldid=1787190 21:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It might be worth contributing to the forum also if its something you seriously care about. --- Adamant1

Insulting other users on User talk:Tigerfell/Crafting

You said, that you were not sure what I referred to when I wrote

Tigerfell: "I think RicoZ knows now how you were treated, but insulting them is by no means better (this happened several times in this discussion already!)"

I was referring to the following statement (you undoubtedly referred to RicoZ in this case):

Adamant1: "If you want to be an apologist for bullies or act like its not a thing, fine. Do it somewhere else though."

I think this is insulting. One could argue about

Admanant1: "I don't give two craps about your personal opinion as to how I was or wasn't treated."

because you stated that you wanted to keep the emotions out. Nonetheless, the tone is negative. With regards to Mateusz Konieczny's request for proposals whose deletion could be discussed, you replied

Adamant1: "...Proposed features/employment agency (which you edited, but probably didn't even read. Not surprising)..."

This is also insulting. Since you wrote that my recognition is one-sided, you might now point me towards similar insults from other people that I missed. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 01:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"I think this is insulting."

That's your opinion. Noticed I said "if." I didn't say he was, but the fact that he constantly brings up that he thinks I am exaggerating about how I was treated me think he is. Otherwise, he just wouldn't bring it up in the first place. As it is, it only serves to under mind and legitimatize my feelings about how I was treated. Which isn't helpful. I was the one that was bullied, I have every right to so say and seek a resolution. It shouldn't be thrown in my face the victim for speaking out about it. So what's more insulting there, me calling him out for it or him doing it? I've seen a lot of people over the years that just took that kind of thing and left the site because they were treated the same way and didn't stick up for themselves. So I rather call someone out than not if it needs to be done. Trust me when I say its better then not saying anything. Even if it might seem insulting on the face of it.

"because you stated that you wanted to keep the emotions out. Nonetheless, the tone is negative."

There's a difference in my mind between negative and emotional. They aren't mutually exclusive. To me what's negative is an objective fact. Whereas, a persons feelings aren't. Its important to keep feelings out of things so we can make progress on the draft getting done and everyone can be heard in the process. It's not important to keep the discussion free of negativity though. For instance, if I propose something that is a completely bad idea, it might be negative to let me know, but I'm fine with that. It's better than adding something stupid to the guidelines just to be a people pleaser.

"This is also insulting. Since you wrote that my recognition is one-sided, you might now point me towards similar insults from other people that I missed."

Insults aren't always obvious, sometimes they can be subtle and under the radar. Some people know how to make them in ways that seem innocuous to outside observers but serve the purpose of undermining the person that they are used toward. Like the whole thing about how people in physically abusive relationships will only hit their partners where other people can't see the bruises. That's why it takes experts to figure it out sometimes. It doesn't mean its not there though. It also means that its easier for the person to deflect by blaming the victim when they retaliate, because the victim is way more out in the open about it.

An example of how examples of where RicoZ does something similar to that is how he always mentions me or EzekielT in a negative light when neither one of us were talking to him and the subject didn't have anything to do with us. For example "Alice sees that, changes her mind and thinks the pages should not be deleted after all so she removes the delete proposal or opposes it in the discussion page. Now figuring out the history is interesting .. and then flies by User:EzekielT, does something like this." What he is referring to had already been discussed by EzekielT himself in other places and it had nothing to do with the discussion, but its a good way to negative name drop to anyone that might be browsing the discussion.

Also, this tidbit during a discussion you and him were having that neither one of us was involved in and that you didn't call him out on "Consider the case of amenity=bikeshed. It was mentioned in the mailing list discussion (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042659.html) and got the clear vote "keep". Nevertheless the two deletist apologetics still tried to delete it, created a mess and broke every single netiquette rule that I know in the process." Notice also that I hadn't even been involved in the draft discussion until that point, because it seemed like both of you were handling it fine up until then. I probably wouldn't have gotten involved either if it wasn't for making that comment. He could have just as easily said "Adamant1 and EzekielT decided to have it deleted anyway" or something a lot nicer. There had also already been multiple discussions on the forum topic and the admins page about how I wasn't acting alone and that I had discussed things with other people. Know one, including you, ever told him to stop repeating the lie that I was unilaterally though or that I wasn't breaking any rules by what I was doing.

Also, "Glimpsing over an ocean of opnions by Adamant1 and EzekielT: please try to stay as concise as possible in your comments. Perhaps it will be better if you make your own proposal and we can put both proposals on vote." Its not like there's rule about how long messages can be or how many times people can reply in a discussion strand. Plus, there's plenty of long discussions above that by both of you to each other. When it comes to mine or EzekielT's opinions though, their "long winded" and we should create our proposals instead of "intruding" on his/yours. He did the same thing in the forum to. Know one said crap to him about it. Instead of having a reasoned argument about anything, it was always stuff about the length of messages, but again, only when it comes to people that disagree with him. In general, I find the whole "I'm right because your messages are to long" argument extremely irritating and disingenuous. Its only used as a blow off. Dieterdreist wrote many long messages there and know one took issue with them.

There was also the many times on the forum and other places that he repeatedly said there was probably no point in coming up with guidelines because me and EzekielT would just ignore them anyway. When I said repeatedly that I would. He never said jack about anyone else ignoring the multiple people including admins that told them to stop reverting me nor has he acknowledged any opinion by anyone that disagree with him.

He also bossed me around and insulted me on his talk page when I hadn't said anything rude to him. "Also moderate your style, it is no joy to deal with you." But that was OK I guess, because "its just humor." Know one came to my defense there. Although they are always perfectly fine to suddenly appear and dog pile on me when I say something they don't like in someone's talk page.

On the forum, "Did anyone look how many of these 240 are by user Adamant1? I see there might be quite a few - and I would suggest all those requests for deletion are suspended, changed to delete proposal or handled otherwise because previously not all of his delete requests were uncontested." Which was obviously false and just an attempt to slander me. As know one, including him was going to look through 240 proposals to see who did them. So it was clearly just an opportunity to take a worthless jab at me and to make it seem like what I was doing was worse than it was by people browsing the forum. That was the comment that kind of led to me going at him in the first place. If he hadn't of started crap there needlessly, I probably wouldn't have an issue with him now.

Further down from down that "Wrong impression, wrong forum. I did not count all of the delete requests and most discussions are in the mailing lists." Uselessly snarky and condescending in my opinion. Also, "If you got more complaints than other users it may have two reasons: either you make more mistakes or people are simply overwhelmed by the number of delete requests that you made. Either case is a problem that you should try to avoid or you will get more serious complaints." That was after multiple comments by multiple people about how it wasn't a one sided thing and that I had support, but yeah, its all "my problem" there's issues and instead of trying to work things out, I should just stop doing it.

"No, I had the impression that you are exceptionally self-righteous. Most discussions are in the mailing lists, this has been the first time since years that I visited the forum and I will ignore it very soon again." Well, see that one there is special. He calls me self-righteous which is pretty insulting and know one says anything to him about it. Although, I say something that could barely be read as insulting to someone and everyone jumps on me about it. I've been lectured for way less from Mateusz Konieczny many times, but he didn't say crap there. Its pretty telling.

"The problem is in my opinion that Adamant1 and Ezekiel use delete against broad consensus. We might try to improve our wiki documentation regarding what and how to delete but I somewhat doubt this will in any way influence the actions of those two users." I said multiple times that people including admins told me to go ahead with it and supported me. Someone could have told him to stop repeating it. It would have been helpful. Again though, its the whole subtle jab thing. Also, "if you repeat it enough people start believing it." Its 100% just a disinformation technique to make me look bad.

From Lyx's talk page, again commenting on something that he wasn't involved in and knows nothing about, simply to undermined me "@Adamant1: I don't think anyone is bossy here." I never said anyone was bossy there. I said people had bossed me around on my talk page and other places over a few years. He's fully aware of that though. He also ignored me when I corrected him. Which he always does and is a common tactic by people that are just saying things to slander people.

The last thing. From the Crafting discussion "Wikipedia has "assume good faith", slandering, intimidation, avoid getting personal, canvassing - all of which seem to have been violated in the course of the recent edit war. If we don't have this in our etiquette it should be added." Then a few weeks later in the message that prompted you to tell me to stay on topic etc "Of course nobody should harass you if you propose something for deletion but I don't think that is what happened." So, first his story is that slandering and intimidation happened and that there should be rules about it. Then when I agree he claims it didn't happen. So either its that it did happen, but not to me and I was the one doing it to other people, or its only cool for there to be guidelines against harassment if he's the one that suggests them. Neither one is great. Also notice he says "avoid getting personal" but then further up he said I was hard to deal with, and then said in the last message that he "didn't think" people harassed me. So which one is it? Should we not get personal or is it OK only when he's the one doing it? And why am I the only one being called out about it?

Hopefully that wasn't to long. I felt like I needed to provide some real examples though. Hopefully you read and consider it despite the length. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just want to give a note that I read it today. There are certainly quotes where I disagree with you, just to name them:

• "Glimpsing over an ocean of opnions by Adamant1 and EzekielT: please try to stay as concise as possible in your comments. Perhaps it will be better if you make your own proposal and we can put both proposals on vote." - This was actually a real problem, lengthy comments with hard to grasp content. It would have been more productive it you would have made a suggestion (like "Please change paragraph x to 'bla bla ...'"). I sometimes had the impression that the comments were just making the others tired (not sure if you intended that though).
• "The problem is in my opinion that Adamant1 and Ezekiel use delete against broad consensus. We might try to improve our wiki documentation regarding what and how to delete but I somewhat doubt this will in any way influence the actions of those two users." - Someone voiced their opinion (in my opinion). You might have noticed that I often wrote I think or In my opinion because I deem them not assaulting if not followed by assaulting words. There is a difference if someone says "X deletes against broad consensus" or "In my opinion, X deletes against broad consensus". While the first one suggests that the statement is somewhat objective, the second one is just an opinion. Certainly, people have different opinions on the border between an opinionated statement and an insult, but there must be some way to name issues, because otherwise we can not build the policy upon them.

Regarding the other ones, I am glad to hear your POV, I guess I can understand your position better now. I will have a look for provocations now.

I think we should always try to AGF and arguing that it was not done in the past is not helping us to establish it. Someone needs to give in (not Adamant1 all the time, but certainly at some spots), otherwise we can not stop this. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time read through it and also that you will look out for similar things more now. As far as your points goes, although I agree that sometimes I can be long winded, the way RicoZ called me out on it by saying to go somewhere else and make my own rules isn't really helpful. The way you handle it by picking specific things and asking for more details is much better. Although, we all have our own ways of handling things I guess. For the record, in the past when I was concise about things I got accused of being to vague and people said I need to provide more details. I guess I just need to find a good middle ground.

On the "In my opinion" thing, I agree with most of what you said. Most things are objective and its hard to tell the intent behind things. So I don't know. There are clear cases where people's opinions aren't helpful though. Like in cases where its at the expensive of another person. Which is mostly what I take issue with. I have no problem with someone providing feedback on things if its prefaced with "I think this" or whatever. I do that a lot myself. It helps to depersonalize the criticism away from the other person and put it more on what is being criticized. Although, it's a little "It's not you it's me"ish, but whatever.

At least its being dealt with. So far, I'm pretty happy with what's been put in the draft also. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

British tagging parlance

My quick search failed to find page documenting it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop may be interesting as it both confirms the practice and demonstrates that it may be trumped by the tag popularity Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be useful to document it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate you looking into it. Documenting it sounds like a good idea. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Insulting other users in private missive

I had a mighty exchange with Adamant1 on the Talk:Tag:leisure=park page last week. As it was getting heated, and others watched, we took it to private missive. The topic was "is a beach a park?" and despite me bending over backwards to be accommodating with Adamant1 on the topic, patiently explaining history, tagging and rendering changes over a decade and so on, first in the Discussion, then in private missive, then in the map where I spent the better part of yesterday (a sunny, springtime Saturday) making several edits (all relatively minor fixes or updates to answer his local concerns), he dismissed me. His missive to me this morning read (I slightly paraphrase) "out of 19 issues, you've done ZERO." No, changesets 69407245, 69409200, 69409298, 69410328, 69411379, 69412902, 69414357, 69414536, 69414558 and 69426584 (not to mention others from earlier) — all done in the last 24 hours, were done by me and my good will toward his requests or specific complaints. I find Adamant1's contradictions, poor attitude, argumentative style, disregard of facts, truth and data in OSM and our wiki and absolutely atrocious behavior to be more than simply bad or even egregious, it is downright disturbing. I won't go into details of his insulting, potty mouth, childish, petulant behavior here, as I have exchanged a report with his name in it to DWG (the first time I've ever done that in a decade of mapping in OSM). I say this here and now to literally warn other users that if and when Adamant1 bullyrags and abuses you, it is not you, it is him. (Verbal) abuse is abuse, no matter how he tries to twist things. Per the advice of the psychology/psychiatry community at dealing with such behavior, I have chosen to go "No Contact" with him, not answering his recent, multiple screeds at me, rather, I wished him good luck, bid him goodbye and said "I'll see you in the map." I hesitate to say this, but with the mounting evidence (above, elsewhere...) of his bad acts, perhaps it won't be long before we don't. (I will not document his private missives, except with the DWG should they ask). If you've never dealt with word salad before, you'll find it often with Adamant1, as I know it when I see/hear it. I hesitate to use the word "troll," as it can be as inflammatory as he is, yet I wouldn't bring it up if he weren't a quintessential example. Be very careful having anything to do with Adamant1, your mileage may vary. Stevea (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stevea, thanks for the message. Although I think it's a little vindictive to post warnings to other people about a persons behavior on their talk page, especially when it reverences private messages, your allowed to have your opinions and I will keep them here for prosperity. As I don't delete things that make me look bad after the fact, like you have. Were all responsible for our own behavior and if mine is an issue, people are free to determine it based on whatever they feel like. Alternatively, I will show the respect you haven't shown me by not posting warnings about you on your talk page as retaliation or repeat anything said by you in private messages. As they are private. Except in direct response to dispute things you have said about me when it's necessary. People can see that you have been less then "bending over backwards to be accommodating" from your messages in the park discussion anyway. I don't need to add unnecessary fuel for the fire. I leave that to you.

All that said a few parts of feedback, 1. In know way did I dismiss you in changeset comments. I simply disagreed with your logic and asked for more official sources then your personal experience to verify that what you were saying is true. We have an obligation to do so or anyone can map things however they see fit, simply because they say the thing is how they map it. I already cited the verifiability rules on OSM to you, which you ignored. I'm sure why you have such an issue with it. If things are what you say they are, there should pretty easy to find sources somewhere to back it up. In way is it dismissive to ask you to provide those sources. It comes up all the time in OSM and I'm not the only one doing. So, if you don't like people asking you to confirm what you say, maybe you shouldn't participate in a community project like this. It's basic to these that we don't just map what we want how we want.

2. As far as what you've done in the last 24 hours or not, 69407245 is still a park and you have ignored my suggestion to make it a religious landuse or community center and it says it was last edited 1 day ago. Changeset 69409200 is still both a park and a beach overlapping each other. Which was the issue I had with it (at least I think it was, it's hard to remember and the original changeset comment is gone now, but I'm pretty sure that was it). So it hasn't changed either and it also says it was modified a day ago. Changset 69409298 was just you adding a parking lot. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. 69410328 is better, but you still left the park:type tag on it for some reason even though the leisure=park tag is gone and it requires it. So it should be removed (I'll give you that you did half of something there. So half my bad on that one). 69411379, yeah that looks better. In my defense I had given suggestions on like 25 things and I only got notified on the ones you commented on. Which were all negative comments. So a few you actually changed might have slipped through the cracks because I had know way to know about them. Obviously on an Easter Sunday when I have a lot better things to do I'm not going to dig through a bunch of changeset's to see if you actually fixed anything. All I have to go by until I can review things is what you give feedback on and if you say nothing needs changing, I'm going to assume that's what you decided to do. Although in that last one the parking lot is still tagged as a park. So, you didn't really fully fix that one either. On 69412902, I don't know about that one. Props for changing it, I think. The state park its in still is tagged as leisure=park and it still has a park:type tag. So, it's an improvement yes, but only a minor one. On that one, I did a quick glance and it still looked like it was tagged as a park because of the rendering. It happens. I still think the state park it's in should be re-tagged also though, but how it is now is better than nothing. 69414357 still looks the same, with the same double tagging of "Lighthouse Field State Beach" as both a park and a beach. So you didn't actually fix the issue there. All you did was separate the northern part from it, but that wasn't really the issue. It was the double tagging. 69414536 you did dealt deal with that one and I actually gave you credit for it. Same with 69414558. 69426584 I don't remember. Although you edited it 14 hours ago. Which I'm pretty sure was after the ZERO comment. Although if not, like I said I don't get notified of things you don't comment on and I meant you made ZERO concessions on the things you did. Obviously I wouldn't accuse you of not doing something when it comes to edits you do on your own time that I have zero knowledge of.

"Per the advice of the psychology/psychiatry community at dealing with such behavior, I have chosen to go "No Contact" with him"

I'm glad you've chosen to take that approach. There was zero reason you needed to comment on anything in the first place, and most of what you said wasn't constructive anyway. So, so long and thanks for all the fish. More than likely your disappearing now because you know your out of legs to stand on and because this didn't turn out in your favor. It's pretty predictable to that you'd do it that way after all the talk about building consensus, the need for discussion etc etc. So you say a bunch of stuff should be done, then when it looks like its not going your way, back out of it and don't actually do what you belittled everyone else about doing. Also, make a few superficial changes, claim you did something when you really didn't. Then disappear. Nice...Whatever the case, just don't pop back up later when I edit things to deride me about it and don't edit war me on them either. If your not going to be involved anymore, don't be involved. Don't use the fake stuff about my attitude as an excuse do what you want or to undermine me though.

"I have exchanged a report with his name in it to DWG (the first time I've ever done that in a decade of mapping in OSM)."

Good, if they ever contact me, which I doubt they will, it will give me an opportunity to share the messages on the park discussion where you derided me as arrogant, talked down to me repeatedly, refused to give other people a chance to comment when I asked, and said a bunch of other extremely rude things other places. I welcome the opportunity if they do contact me to challenge the one one sided version of things you probably gave them and to tell my side of it. So, feel free to tell them to contact me about it if you want. I really don't mind talking to them. If you even sent them a message about it in the first place. Btw, since we are on the subject I contact an admin about your behavior like a week ago. Don't be surprised if they contact you. Although I wouldn't blame them if don't.

I'll ignore the troll comment. As you've made it before and still refuse to provide an example of what I'm doing that's trolling. Your allowed to your have your opinions, but without giving examples of what I'm actually doing that's trolling its a pretty pointless thing to say. And as far as the claim of "word salad" goes, I said a few times I have a learning disability that makes concentrating and spelling certain words hard sometimes. Which obviously effects my writing ability. I wouldn't call it word salad though. The fact that you zero empathy about it and continue to attack to me for it says more about you and your mentality then it does me.

To quote The Hitcher Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, "So long and thanks for all the fish." I look forward to not hearing from you ever again. I know my life will 100% better for it. Probably the map will be to.

P.S. To anyone reading this, feel free to contact Steve. I'm not going to play the game he is of saying because our interaction didn't go that it means anything about how he communicates with other people in general. I'm sure he's a perfectly pleasant person, as long as you don't screw with his fake parks and wrong park tagging.

P.S.S. Steve, happy Easter. I hope you were able to fully enjoy whatever perks Pokemon Go gave players for the holiday. Also, I look forward to you actually making the suggested changes that you claim you did and on more then just a few superficial things ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Temporary block on 1 May 2019

You and Stevea have both been blocked from editing this wiki for a period of two weeks due to inappropriate discussion on Talk:Tag:leisure=park (among other non-wiki channels of communication). Please use this time as an opportunity to reflect on the impact that your dispute has had on the OSM community’s health and reputation. You are not required to engage further with Steve; that is the responsibility of administrators and/or the DWG. If after these two weeks, you contribute further to tensions, a more permanent block may be considered. However, I hope it does not come to that, because I have had a positive experience collaborating with both of you in the past and would very much like for that to continue. –  Minh Nguyễn ^💬 17:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Bicycle rental bicycle retail

Hi - in this edit you seem to have replaced a "rental" tag with a "retail" tag. ("retail" of course is about selling things, not renting them.) Was that an error? I suspect you wanted to type "service:bicycle:rental" not "service:bicycle:retail". --Danstowell (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out. I had multiple things going on at once. Seems I just ended up deleting it completely. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes - I didn't spot that! I think the example shouldn't be deleted entirely since it's an illustration of how to tag a multi-hire-place. So I'll tweak it and re-add, hopefully making it a bit clearer. Cheers --Danstowell (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I mostly just removed it because I don't want to see rental tags redundantly added to things that already make it clear in their approved, widely used tag that the object rents those things. Which seem to be the case with the vast majority of the *:rental=* namespace tags. Its just redundant and goes against the reason having a tag like that in the first place. Although, I don't know what the case is with service:bicycle:rental=yes/no. So, in practice I'm more OK with it being in the article then the alternative. Having it clarified helps a lot to. So, thanks for doing that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I revived the old rental=* proposal and plan to do an RfC on it when I have some free time. Perhaps you could look it over and provide some feedback since it would replace the other rental tagging schemes and I'd like as much feedback on it as possible. You can find a link to it in the rental article. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Request not to comment or alter certain edits

Dear user Adamant1,

I noticed that your recent edits in this wiki were very focused on changes made by user Rtfm. While it is usual to check other people's changes, everyone in a wiki needs to accept that other users add information which is not aligned with our personal preferences. That is why I would ask you not to comment or alter the changes of that particular user for the next two months starting from now, even if they are clearly wrong.

Kind regards,
--Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 19:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that. I've made plenty of edits not focused on him and it's not on me that we edit similar things. The shop=motorcycle article isn't "his" article. Nor is any other. Also, 99% of the changes I made to "his" articles where discussed with other users and the edits where based on the censuses from those discussions. I was under the impression here that consensus is important. I would have made the same changes if they where things he edited originally or not. On the shop=motorcycle article I was deleting redundant information. I could really give a crap who added it. Nor am I going to check when doing those types of edits first to make sure I don't step on his over sensitive toes. Feel free to ban me for deleting redundant information or editing an article that other people except him give the OK on. I could really care less at this point. Also, I find it rather one sided that you never did anything about him insulting me etc., but this is an issue. That would have been the way to deal with things. Not chastising someone for making legitimate edits. I expect a similar message on his talk page, with you explicitly telling him not to accuse people of being vandals and not to insult other users. and you telling him not to change things I've edited for 2 months. Including the revert he just did to my edit on the Namespace tag overview article. Which was discussed. Also, the same should go for Jeisenbe. Since a good portion of his edits have been to things RTFM has edited. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore this and continue what I've been doing. I might anyway. As I wasn't specifically targeting RTFM in the first place as you claim I was, and realistically I'm not going to check every edit I do before hand to make sure he didn't have something to do with it. If you really want the issue dealt with, deal with him. He's done many more problematic edits then I have. Including multiple times to completely legitimate edits me and others have done. I guess it's fine though since he's gotten a pass on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To be a bit more precise, I ask you to refrain from editing any pages you have edited between 1 and 16 April 2020, except for your talk page and my talk page. Additionally, I would like to ask you not to comment on edits made by Rtfm and not to edit a page that they will edit, except for your talk page, until 16 June 2020. Thank you! --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 19:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I appreciate you clarifying things and leaving RTFM the message. If I happen to make any mistakes, feel free to let me know and I will remedy it if I can. Not that I intend to. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tigerfell:, to quote RTFM "I will certainly avoid any confrontation." Please see the shop=vehicles talk page. Where he did the exact opposite and initiated a discussion with me, in an extremely confrontational manor. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: What exactly did I edit that I wasn't suppose to that warranted a block. If it is due to the comment on the Wiki discussion page, that is neither a page I edited between 1 and 16 April 2020, a comment on anything RTFM edited, or a page they will edit. So, I'm not sure how I would get blocked for doing it. I'd also say IMO that since it is an admin board, it should be considered neutral territory and I have every right to state facts about RTFM's behavior there as such. I should be able to discuss how I was treated by another user in a public forum. In no way where my words anything to be considered instigating an argument with him (they weren't directed at him and he wasn't a part of the discussion), you didn't ban from talking about him to other people, and it was nothing I didn't say to you already. So, I'm not really sure why it warranted a block. As it didn't go against anything you told me not to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: The block notice says I can discuss it with the blocking admin. So I'd like to know why I was blocked when you never said I couldn't discuss RTFM with other people and nothing I said was any different then what I had already told you or commented about elsewhere. So, why was I blocked? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the block notice does not state that, it only states what you did. I requested you not to not to comment on edits made by Rtfm. In Special:Diff/1985318/1985385 you wrote he repeatedly insults the intelligence of other users and [...] Which is completely ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated. That is a clear comment on their editing behaviour. I have asked you to refrain from that for a specific time span. Nonetheless, you commented. So, I blocked you the same way I have also blocked Rtfm before. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh. That sorta makes sense. I guess. I thought you meant like don't comment on one of his changesets or respond to a message he sends anywhere. "comment on edits" sounds like commenting on an edit to me. Making a general statement about things he has said in the past isn't related an edit IMO. Anymore then it would be if I said something like "RTFM has a bad attitude" to some random user. It's neither directed at him or a "comment on edits." It's definitely not equal to him directly messaging me with a rude message after you told him not to contact me. I don't really feel like getting blocked from editing the Wiki because of a miss understanding over the phrasing of what exactly I'm not suppose to do. Let alone should it be treated like, or viewed as equal, to RTFM's behavior. In no way is it comparable. I'd hope you wouldn't block someone for having an opinion or making a general statement about something. Also, I would hope that my comment on the Wiki article didn't or doesn't dissuade you from taking the action that was requested there. I'd feel bad if Mateusz Konieczny and others were robbed of justice just because I impulsively interjected on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the miss understanding is that I was commenting about something. I thought by on you meant in, like don't comment in any articles he edits, if that makes any sense. Not that I couldn't comment about him anywhere in the wiki to random people, in conversations that he wasn't involved in. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

repair=shoes

Hi, for a shop=shoes or craft=shoemaker what is the added for repair=shoes compared to repair=yes, which is used currently 2,752 times? I refer to your message to Jeisembe --Nospam2005 (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know. I say go with whichever ones fits better to your situation. Maybe repair=shoes is better if it is a shoe shop. Since they aren't making shoes, but it does depend on the particular store. I'm not sure what the distinction between a craft person who alters something versus makes something is anyway. I'm sure shoe makers also alter shoes. Just like a dress maker would also alter dresses etc etc. I think the on the ground rule could also apply. If the shoe shop's sign or whatever specifically says "repair" go with repair. Otherwise, it might confuse people viewing the map, on the ground or otherwise. Especially if craft tags are ever rendered. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your undiscussed automatic edit to retag amenity=hospice (was not, resolved)

Just wanted to let you know that I have notified data working group about your undiscussed automated edit. Please, play by the rules or leave. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Good. I left you a message on one of my changesets. I'd appreciate it if you responded to it. There was nothing automated about it, you should have discussed it with me before the revert, and this seems more like petty BS and harassment on your part because of the disagreement we got in in relation to the Name-index over similar things then a legitimate grievance. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I reported you to the DWG for your retaliatory actions and not contacting me about my edits before you reverted them. If you had of, I would have been perfectly fine stopping what I was doing and figuring out a better way to do things. It's on you that you didn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not reverted any changesets from you here. I am apologizing for the accusations of mass edits, it seems it was a coincidence that made it look like you did (just saw 3-4 consecutive edits of you with such retagging, all 2 days ago). I have also asked for excusing me in the wiki. —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Things happen and I can see where you would miss-interpret things. Unfortunately now I have SomeoneElse spamming my changesets and accusing me of things because of it. Which I don't really need, but whatever. I'm sure it will get worked out (sometimes I wish Wiki's had emoji's). --Adamant1 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from “blanking” wiki pages, though. I have seen there are also other users who have asked you so. I have seen you are doing a lot of “map gardening”/cleaning/normalization, and there is some benefit from it, but it also bears risks. Most valuable contributions can be made in areas that you know from in person visits. I have no doubt you are acting with the best intentions and are making a lot of positive contributions, so please do not get me wrong. —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a huge thing about it, but people were "blanking" wiki pages and adding the abandoned template to them long before I was. Including the people who have complained about me doing it. No one no is willing to discuss when it's appropriate or not. They just go off and say not to do it. Just like everything else around here. It's cool when they do it, not when anyone else does, and they won't discuss things outside of chastising people. There's never any guidelines about of the crap they go off about either. It's always that whoever does something they don't like should fall the freak in line because they say to. Otherwise, the person doesn't deserve to contribute to the project anymore etc etc. Including the whole "why don't you just map in your own area" crap. No one just maps in their own area. Especially the people who telling me I should. Everyone does maps, comments, contributes, etc etc everywhere. Especially the European people, who constantly throw tantrums about people mapping in their areas. It's cool if some dude from Germany screws up a park where I live by turning it into janky multi-polygon but then I can't re-tag a hospice in Europe to something that's more supported? Whatever the hell ever.

The whole thing is completely ridiculous and makes OSM look like a platform full of overly pretentious, paranoid petty users. Just so we are clear I'm not including you in that. I think you've been more then fair about things. It's just a general comment about the state of things around here. There's no guidelines about anything and It's never clear what kind of edits are or aren't acceptable until after there's drama about it. I really believe in the goals of OSM, but dealing with the constant paranoid petty nonsense from everyone is getting really old and is harder to deal with then it really should be. It shouldn't be a constant trade off between things like blanking pages or burning users. It seems like people around here have some really screwed up priorities though. Especially the users that have been contributing for a long time. Anyway, I think I said all I need to about it. I'll refrain from blanking pages for now because I've had enough drama over ridiculous nonsense as it is. I'm not making any promises about it long term though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I appreciate that you clarified things on the amenity=hospice talk page and said it was your mistake. That was really good of you to do. Also, I want to apologize for accusing you of doing the whole thing as a way to get back at me for the disagreement over Italian banks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for not blanking the wiki pages anymore. Be assured I also write to other people who do it :) I also would not tolerate Germans (or whoever) breaking your parks, of course. I know there is a lot of armchair mapping going on, and while there are all kinds of quality (or not) in this area, I recognize you seem to be working quite careful and diligently (I took a look at some of your recent edits yesterday in osmcha after DWG wrote to me that you only had retagged a handful of hospices ;-) ). I admit yesterday I got quite angry when I suspected you of retagging hundreds of hospices, and then felt ashamed that I didn’t dig deeper to verify, before accusing you, so I tried to rectify it. Regarding the amenity=social_facility tag I am not a particular fan of it, because it is too broad. Yes, someone can now render everything “social” by looking just at a single tag, but if you really are interested in any of these services, the information there is “something social” will not be sufficient. There are very different objects under this tag, I would rather like to see the opposite: retagging to amenity=outreach/soup_kitchen/nursing_home/food_bank/hospice etc. Compared to the typical flat hierarchy in OpenStreetMap, social facility is an outlier (as is tower by the way). This style of tagging made it more difficult to support with a relational database (now with hstore it is less of an issue), because it meant you had to have a column “social_facility” in order to make sense of it, as “amenity”, which was present “by default”, does not give sufficient information. Anyway, it seems this ship has mostly sailed...—Dieterdreist (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Language as a native speaker vs second language

On Mateusz' talk page you wrote: "Yet Polarbear w is still telling me the definition of an English word as I don't know it. So, I have to assume he has enough confidence in the language and enough to think he knows it better then I do, or he wouldn't be telling native speakers the meaning of English words in the first place. I dare to imagine the consternation I'd receive if I was hanging out in German language OSM channels and trying to tell them what the meaning of German words were. That's one the problems with your whole "you don't understand things because of you where come from" approach to this. Clearly it doesn't extend to you, because here you talking in English and trying to explain English to a native English speaker. It's rather rich. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)"

My perspective is different. If you, as a proud native speaker of English, use words inconsistently and conflate the meaning of different concepts, you make the life more complicate for those who use that as their 2nd or 3rd language. That's the point where I have to check the dictionaries to disentangle the maze you spin in your usually very long statements. As for your other idea of learning German, I'm happy to support you if you try. How many foreign languages do you speak so far? --Polarbear w (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I figured you'd take offense to that and also take it out of context. Just an FYI, it was in response to Dieterdreist saying that I might ignorant to the meaning of the word "Hospice" or how it applies to places tag as amenity=hospice in Germany because of cultural differences between Germany and America. Along with differences in languages. My point was that obviously there's cultural/linguistic differences, but they are only an issue when people like you and Dieterdreist point them out and make them issues. From what I've seen, the nativism never seems to go the other way. I've never seen any America mapper tell a European mapper they might be ignorant when it comes to how tag things in America due to "the cultural ignorance of Europeans as to how things work in America" or whatever. European mappers never seem to mind mapping in America, using the American language, Etc. Etc. either. They never tell each other "maybe you should only map in Germany" or "clearly you don't understand English because your not a native speaker and therefore shouldn't use tags in English." Yet they are quick to make every discussion about that when it's none Americans/none Europeans they are discussing things with. It's never that people just naturally disagree about things sometimes. It's a constant thing to, that has been thrown out by multiple people who only seem to be from Europe, and at this point I'm extremely sick of it and the hypocrisy/soft racism (ethnocentrism?) it involves. Like I told Dieterdreist, would it be cool to say to someone from Africa "your ignorant about this because you come from Africa"? My guess would be no.

Also, if you don't like the length of messages I write or find them to long, cool. Be an adult by not reading them or not goading me into having to explain things in detail because the short answers I already gave weren't enough. I have zero sympathy for complaints about message length when it comes from people that are unwilling to accept short answers to things and continually force people to discuss things that have already been discussed add nauseum. If I say something like "I don't really care about this that much. Feel free to re-tag it how you think it should tag", which I've said about 15 times now, then I'm forced to continue discussing it in multiple forums, to multiple people, and over multiple years because none of will accept that, then you can really piss off with the accusations that I'm spinning things. If anything, you are. Same with this discussion. I wasn't the one that brought up "cultural differences", you and Dieterdreist were. So now I'm "spinning things" by responding it to? What the hell ever. And really if your not a native English how the hell would you know I'm conflating words in the first place? I have a B.A. that was heavy in English writing, I graduated with honors and got As in 99% of my classes. Multiple teachers told me I am an excellent writer. Yet I have to sit here and listen to an "ignorant" none native English speaker/German tell me what's wrong with how I write English, whatever. The gull of some people. Again, it's not my talking point. BTW, in case you can't tell by now, I have absolutely zero tolerance for hypocrisy. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Polarbear w:, What's your definition of a "systematic" edit and what do you think constitutes one? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd have an answer. You people are always perfectly fine accusing people of crap at a moments notice but then are always unwilling to define what your accusing people of in a clear and concise way or say how it's actually a problem. Probably since you don't want to be held accountable later on for not following your own standard and because it would take away your ability to be petty and petulant about non-sense. The other day I intentionally mapped 60 power poles in a "systematic" manor. I think I even committed the grave sin of not detailing every single minute detail of the changesets in the comments. I look forward to you and the rest of your cabal to eventually throw a tantrum and revert the edits, or just spend years harassing me over them, because that's literally the level of biennial crap that goes on. You have the gull to waste my time going off about something that's a non-issue and literally no one aside from you gives a crap about. Then you chide me about how long my messages are and say I'm the spinning things. What the hell ever dude. The level of entitlement you people have is completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Mobile Phone Repair

Hi Could you provide links to any discussion(s) re: your edit to the mobile phone shop page. What should the primary tag for shops which only perform repairs be? Shop=? ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dmobile_phone&diff=2196475&oldid=2066696 --DaveF63 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, no. I didn't really need to. Since the tag is used over 6,000 times and I'm simply describing it's use. Which is what articles are for. Do you have a have a specific issue with the edit or was the question just along the lines of the usual faux pas, larpy gate keeping that some people on here like to do for some reason?

On your other question, from what I've seen the general consensus is that POIs that don't sell things shouldn't be tagged as shops. Which is one of the reasons the craft tag was created. Although there are work arounds that retain the shop tag, like the various whatever:sales=no being used, but those are extremely questionable and not really accepted as proper tagging by the community. In the meantime, craft=electronics_repair has been used way more then any of the alternatives anyway and there should be a way to tell shops that sell mobile phones apart from ones that just repair them. And incase your wondering, there has been multiple discussion about POIs that don't sell things not being tagged as shops. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised you don't know all that already though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.compliancegate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/baby-pacifier-standards-european-union.jpg --DaveF63 (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I take it that's in reference to you starting this discussion because you didn't like the edit or how the tag is used. I agree you taking it up with me like this is a rather infantile way to act about it instead of discussing it on the shop=mobile_phone article where it might actually make a difference. In the meantime, I'm going with this being larpy gate keeping more then an actual issue. Otherwise, the shop=mobile_phone talk page would likely be the proper place for the discussion. I look forward to you proving me wrong that your just being a larpy, childish gate keeper by having it there though. God speed and good luck, really. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That degenerated quickly. At every step of this short discussion I see the behaviour getting worse. Please read it again and see for yourself, both of you. Please assume that not only you, but also people disagreeing with you, share an interest in making OSM an even better project. These people are not your enemies, not idiots, not malicious, they just happen to disagree with you on some matter. Treat them like you would want them to treat you. Thanks --Lyx (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

While I'm sure that DaveF63 wants to make OSM better, I don't see how that goal is reached by him asking me vapid and arbitrary questions that he can easily find the answers to. I'm more then willing to help him make OSM better if he actually says what his problem with my edit is though, but obviously I can't alter my edit in a way that he approves of based solely on an image of a pacifier. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

possible synonym

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit because I believe it still has value to keep the information about it even without current usage. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool&oldid=2427565 —Dieterdreist (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: It only had like 5 uses to begin with and 4 of them where mapped by the same user in the same area. so I don't really see what the value in keeping the information is. Otherwise you could add literally anything to the "Possible tagging mistakes" sections of an article. I'd agree with leaving it if there more then that and there was an actual, established, systematic history of the tag being wrongly used. Like if it was a pre-set in iD Editor or something. That's not the case here though. If nothing else, you'd at least have to agree that for something to be including a "possible tagging mistake" section it at least has to be a "possible" tagging mistake, not a one off tagging error mainly done by a single person. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

while you could add anything, this is one that actually is added by mappers. There are only few because people go around fixing them. Knowing about synonyms is useful for interpreting data, both historic data and current data. This tag has been used 400 times at certain points, http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/leisure/pool please restore what you removed, thank you. —Dieterdreist (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The only reason the tag was used 400 times is because of a mass edit in 2018 and it's been on a pretty steady decline ever since. If you want to argue it's worth mentioning because of that cool, but acting like there's been any amount of organic usage by the community at large is just disingenuous. No one is using it. At least not to a degree that makes it worth mentioning in the article. Or like I said anything could be added to an article as a possible synonym of something. No article is meant to be exhaustive. In the meantime you have literally zero argument for why the information should stay in the article.

Not to make this personal, but more generally it seems like you have a real issue when it comes to considering other people's opinions or compromising. Which is rather tenacious to say the least. At the end of the day this is a rather biennial, petty issues that has literally zero impact on anything. So why not just accept how someone else wants an article to be edited for once and move on? It's not like it can't be mentioned in the article if or when it starts to be used by people outside of a mass edit. But at this point it's clearly not a possible synonym of leisure=swimming_pool. At least not to a degree that makes it worth mentioning in the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: At least have the decency and respect for other people's time to come up with a clear line where you think something should or shouldn't be listed as a possible synonym of a tag. Otherwise your wasting both our time and will continue to be reverted. I'm perfectly fine meeting you half way and not removing references to tags with a certain amount of consistent usage over time or whatever (I'm already doing that to some degree), but it helps no one if every single possible unused variant of a tag is listed in articles. For one because that's not the purpose of the "possible synonym" section, but it also makes articles hard to parse through and not informative after a certain point even if it was. Listing a bunch of tags that weren't ever used to any degree and never will be really doesn't help anyone. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adamant1. Tags that have never been widely used (depending on what the tag represents) are not of interest to consumers. And the purpose of the "possible synonyms" section for me is to give a hint what can be improved in OSM now. -- Something B (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi, I'm writing to inform you that your revert of the revert was causing edit-warring and it likely is not a good idea to do that on the Wiki page "Key:Currency". Reverting the revert is not really a good idea, it goes against the "be brave" concept that most wiki's follow. Its Ok for someone to make a "brave" edit, but if it gets reverted then to solve it you escalate to other channels and talk about it, reverting it again and again is not ideal and coming to consensus is much harder that way. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you!

Your the only one doing edit warring. I can revert a revert if I think Kovposch's edit was better. That's not edit waring. You continuing to revert multiple people and reversing to accept the consensus that Kovposch's version is fine is the definition of edit waring. Like I said in my last changeset comment, you don't own the article. Get over it and discuss the changes on the talk page if you disagree with them or think it should be written differently. Also, sign your comments next time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, there is one suggested edit from Kovposch which was reverted as being factually incorrect. After that its been a series of reverts. The fact remains that the proposed change by Kovposch needs to be discussed elsewhere. Notice that the crypto stuff (see also Cryptocurrency) is written up and maintained by me. If you disagree with the initial revert, you can take it up on the talk page. Saying you think I should discuss your revert of my revert is dishonest. Kaartjesman (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What I'm saying you should discuss on the talk page is the wording in Kovposch's original edit that you supposedly disagree with. Whatever the details of the disagreement is, if two other editors think something sounds better that's usually how the article should be worded. What's dishonest is your claim that you wrote and maintain the article. You only started editing it a few months ago and like I said you don't own it just because you changed a few sentences. I suggest you revert the last edit and start a talk page discussion about the particulars of the wording that disagree with. Otherwise, I can almost guarantee that you will be on the losing end if this escalates to an admin or the DWG. Especially if it goes to the DWG since your edits are obviously part of a bigger offsite mass editing campaign to places that accept cryptocurrency. Ask yourself if that's a dice you want to role. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To understand the basic idea of how this works, wikipedia has a nice description on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle Kaartjesman (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. Although I can guarantee you'd be on the wrong end of this there to. Be my guest and report me to the DWG though. I'll wait and just report you in a few days when you inevitably chicken out. How's that sound? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets put it this way, your action made visible on the wiki page the statement that the ISO code XBT is conflicting with the Bhutan currency. I reverted with the message that the actual Bhutan currency is BTN. Which makes sense since the ISO standard specifies that any money code starting with X is reserved for non-country-currencies. Now, nobody has so far provided any proof or evidence for the claims made in the edit you keep trying to get onto the wiki. Feel free to take that opportunity here. Kaartjesman (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have left your version of the edit alone if the thing about the ISO code XBT conflicting with the Bhutan currency was the only thing in the original edit. There's zero reason you couldn't have just edited that one part out of the article though. Instead of changing the wording on other sections by reverting Kovposch's original edit whole cloth. Since the rest of what Kovposch wrote is correct. For BitcoinCash it is "suggested" to use currency:BCH=* and so on. Your just making it about the XBT ISO thing to deflect from the fact that your version removes "suggested" from the paragraphs to make it sound like that's 100% what people should be doing. I could care less about the ISO code of Bhutan currency though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddormitory etc.

You reverted the edit that I made here. I made that edit in response to the discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-February/029990.html . The presence of the "possible synonym" text on that page caused someone to remove all previously tagged "building=hall_of_residence". British English is the language used in OSM, and in that language "dormitory" and "hall of residence" are not synonymous (and for the avoidance of doubt, the usage of "hall of residence" in OSM was broadly in line with it's British English definition). Please do not "just change" things like this where you don't understand things. The talk-gb poster noted that you "attract regular controversy" and they are unfortunately correct in that. As I've said to you publicly and privately in the past that perception is driven by your behaviour and you are the one person who can change that.

Another recent wiki change by you resulted in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bring-back-tag-industrial-machine-shop/8335 . My comment there was "but to say that the recommended replacement is man_made=works + product=machinery simply makes no sense".

I would strongly suggest that you stop editing the wiki in this manner. If you think something "is just wrong", please discuss it. I'd suggest that https://community.openstreetmap.org/ would be an excellent place to do that. Although I am a wiki admin, this message is being sent in a personal capacity - I'm trying to help you get along better with everyone else in the project. SomeoneElse (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hhmm, well I wasn't aware of the mailing list discussion. Maybe its just me but it seems like the place to have the discussion should have been on one of the tags talk pages. Also, it seems like an issue with whoever decided to do the re-tagging. Obviously that's not on me. Nor is it on people who edit the wiki if someone takes a recommendation literally and does a mass edit or whatever when they shouldn't have. Things like that are bound to happen. Like I said, they are "possible" tagging mistakes. I'm not a fan of the wording either, but it is what it is. I'm not responsible for what other people do though.

Outside of that the idea that your just trying to help me get along better with everyone else in the project is just disingenuous at best. Since your perfectly fine insulting me and upvoting comments from people attacking me on the community forum. I don't have a problem with "everyone" in the project either. It's mostly just you and a couple of other control freaks who think everything revolves around them. It's not on me that a few people on here act like self-entitled children every time someone does something they disagree with. The problem there is that people like you feed into it. If you actually cared about people getting along better you'd deal with the people who are actually causing the drama instead of just feeding into their nonsense with the endless, one sided lecturing.

This is a perfect example of that. People add possible synonyms to articles all the time and often without discussing it first. In the meantime, people sometimes take them literally and re-tag objects that they shouldn't. That's life. Instead of sucking it up and dealing with the person who did the re-tagging your lecturing me about something I had nothing to do with like it's my issue when it isn't. At the end of the day I'm glad there was a discussion and that the edit was reverted. Obviously I don't want people re-tagging objects that shouldn't be re-tagged. To the degree that it became a problem is because you've turned into one by not just saying there was a discussion about it in your original revert comment. I would have been fine with that. Instead you made it into a personal issue on my talk page when there zero reason to. This isn't an issue though. At least not outside of your apparent need to use it as yet another opportunity to axe grind.

So you want me to get along with "everyone"? Cool. Be the change you want to see in the world. Don't message me over biennial nothing crap that I'm not even responsible for next time. Don't drag me through the dirt in random forum threads that I have nothing to do with. Don't upvote comments attacking me. Shit happens. 99.9% of what I do is pretty non-controversy. Long-term, more established users cause more problems then I do sometimes and you seem to have zero issue with them. So get over it, stop blowing what I do out of proportion, and get along with me if you want to get along. It's not that difficult. It's a two way street though. I'm not going to just sit here and act all nice while you and a few other users repeatedly trash me chance you get. Sorry. In the meantime it's fine to get reverted sometimes. That's just how this works. The fact that you'd make such an issue out of it is especially ridiculous since you don't even edit the wiki. Hell, you don't even do much mapping. There's nothing more galling then something who doesn't work in a particular area criticizing the edits of someone who does. I'm not criticizing you for how you do your job as a DWG member and I'm sure there's plenty there to criticize. So maybe get off the high horse and stop nitpicking. I'm not here just to be bossed around or blamed for everyone else problems. Thanks though. If you have an actual issue with anything I do, fine. I'm more then willing to discuss it. I'm not going to just sit here silently and nod in agreement while you drag me through the mud, lecture me, or blame me for things I have nothing to do with though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)