User talk:Lyx

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

USA Tipps

Noch mal vielen Dank für deine Seite, ich finde die ist echt gelungen! Hab jetzt glaube ich ganz guten Durchblick und einige Fragen haben sich geklärt :) --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up the wiki

Please take part in this discussion :) --★ → Airon 90 12:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Admin

Hallo. Im Forum wird grade diskutiert wie das mit dem Finden neuer Admins läuft. Da du ja Admin bist, könntest du erzählen wie das bei dir ablief? Wir konnten leider keine Doku zu dem Prozess finden. Danke im voraus, --Andi 21:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

about abusefilter extention

You can auto-block userpage spam : http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/2. But nned to install abusefilter extention. Crochet.david (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont think this ban was deserved

This is was first edit and most likely this person was unaware of Commercial OSM Software and Services. There no need to ban people because they are not aware of every single page at our wiki. Xxzme (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree: Almost every spammer makes only one single edit, so a ban for a first edit is the normal case for spam blocks. The banned user here made an addition to the page that consisted mostly of a link to a company webpage that had no relation to openstreetmap, mapping or geo information at all. The obvious goal was to achieve a higher search engine ranking by being linked from a high ranking site. Of course this wouldn't work anyway because all external links on the wiki are wrapped with a rel=nofollow attribute. --Lyx (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki edit disputes

Xxzme

Hi Lyx, wiki editing on pages where Xxzme is appearing too is really no fun. He insists on his opinion (which is departing from the established page states) without going into compromises and quickly steps down into ranting, cursing and false commenting about me. Page histories get messy by this.

Xxzme's edits often require cleanup/correction afterwards. Sometimes because he "deduplicated" pages while not moving/merging some content. Or just breaking template inclusion.

I hate too loose my time and good mood by this user. And, no, I do not want to talk with Xxzme again, for good reason. And I am not alone, you may know it.

Please, could you use your admin powers to stop Xxzme? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to support Aseerel4c26's observations with my own, as I have had issues with Xxzme in the past myself on multiple occasions. Xxzme is quick to start edit wars, likes to drastically change the function of established wiki pages, and follows his own idea of how the wiki should be organized, without taking feedback from others into account. I have talked to him in the past, both on his user talk page and elsewhere, but I haven't really found him responsive to criticism.
Now I will admit that I did not always react correctly to him, some of my responses (e.g. this revert) were unnecessarily hostile. But in the end, it's not just an issue between him and myself (or Aseerel4c26), but imo a systematic issue with Xxzme's approach to collaboration in a community. I hope you take that into account when assessing the situation. --Tordanik 11:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I think that in the work of the user User:Xxzme more harm than good. Look at the talk page in his profile User_talk:Xxzme. With this, you will not find any discussion before he starts edit. Moreover, in their public discussions in their native language in his profile there is swearing. All of this is not normal and no adds a friendly atmosphere to attract new members, I think.--s-s-s (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Aseerel4c26 continue uncooperative actions while hiding evidence of his vandalism/ignoring talk pages everywhere at wiki

Examples of his vandalism:


In general, you can easily track for frequent he uses "revert" and "undo" instead of cooperating / discussions at talk pages

My list is not full, please also review his edit history. Xxzme (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Dear Aseerel4c26, Dear Xxzme,

I am sorry to hear that you apparently did not manage to find common ground. I see that both of you make many changes to the Wiki, and as far as I can see you both generally try to make the Wiki a better, more useful tool for mappers. I will have a closer look at the details that you provided and try to find a way out of this situation. Unfortunately I will be traveling until Sunday and not have time to get a full view of the situation before that, so please give me time until next Wednesday to come up with results. I would appreciate if both of you limit yourself to noncontroversial edits until then. I will also invite comments from a few other users. --Lyx (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes as you say, both Aseerel4c26 and Xxzme are very active on the wiki and trying to make the wiki better. So it's a shame to be banning either of them. I think both these people have a tendency to come across rude to others on occasions, due to english language expressions and conversational mannerisms which can be difficult for non-native speakers. We have to make allowances for that.
Now they're both clashing with eachother. If that wasn't happening then there would be no need for a ban. I think both of them have demonstrated good faith attempts to discuss the matters at hand. In particular I note that Xxzme has a good habit of moving discussions to the talk page, rather than always discussing while reverting. However there's no civil discussion happening now, and this state of edit warring is not acceptable. A ban is needed.
I suggest we ban Xxzme. That's because in these cases where there is an edit war happening, it seems to me that he is generally pushing a less useful wiki edit. More importantly it seems to me he is more rude. He's obviously been very rude with Aseerel4c26, but in general he seems less able to cooperate peacefully with others in the community.
A wiki ban doesn't need to be permanent but Xxzme needs to realise that this will happen.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Decision

I have now looked at the edit history in more detail, and several people have sent comments here on the wiki, by email or in person. Thanks to all the users that offered advice. Looking at the edits of Xxzme, most of these edits appear to be useful and improve the wiki. Sometimes he makes mistakes, but that happens to everyone and should not be a reason for a ban. However, Xxzme has often reacted rude and aggressive when someone disagreed with one of his edits. This frequently leads to others loosing any hope of a civil discussion and quickly degenerates into an edit war. There is a danger that we drive other editors away if this continues.

I have decided to issue a temporary ban of User Xxzme for 1 month. I hope that he decides to still work on the Wiki after this timeout, and that he will be working in a more cooperative way then.

Deleted my user page

And labelled it as spam. I don't remember what was on it, probably some innocuous links.

Why did you delete it? --Hubne (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The page contained only bi-lingual spam in Chinese and English. Deleting the page was a mistake, I had not noticed that the spammer had replaced the content of an existing page instead of creating a new one. I apologize for that. I have restored the previous versions of your user page. --Lyx (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for apologising and correcting the deletion :) Please tell me this was a rare oversight and that you generally check for pre-existing content before deleting these pages. I am going to put a watch on my user page right after this edit, perhaps that would have been a wise precaution for me to take in the first place. Hubne (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I also hope this was a rare oversight. At least I can't recall any others right now, except one that I noticed and reverted immediately after it happened. Usually, after noticing a spammer I start with checking the spammers edit history. There, newly created pages are marked different from changes and I treat them differently. Of course, I'm only human so I do make mistakes eventually. --Lyx (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wo kann man Spammer melden?

Hallo Lyx, auf der BlockList habe ich gesehen, dass du wohl die nötigen Rechte hast, um Spammer in einen highway=* + noexit=yes + oneway=yes laufen zu lassen. Könntest du dir bei Gelegenheit bitte mal User:Poker88 vorknöpfen, der hat die Diskussionsseite von Lübeck/Fahrradstadtplan zweimal um nicht themenverwandte Inhalte erweitert... Danke! – Zusatzfrage: wie/wo melde ich Spammer möglichst effektiv? --zarl (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Zarl, wenn es eine vom Spammer neu angelegte Seite ist, einfach den Inhalt mit einem delete|spam Makro ersetzen, ansonsten die Änderung des Spammers rückgängig machen und in den Änderungskommentar das Wort 'Spam' mit unterbringen. Ich gehe die Änderungsliste im Wiki regelmässig durch, andere Admins wahrscheinlich auch. --Lyx (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Danke für den Keyword-Hinweis, merk ich mir... --zarl (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Löschung von Proposed features/House numbers/Karlsruhe Schema

Ich habe letztes Jahr die Löschung von Proposed features/House numbers/Karlsruhe Schema beantragt, um die Verschiebung des Originalinhalts der Seite rückgängig machen zu können. Der User, der die Seite seinerzeit verschoben hatte, hat übrigens nichts dagegen - insofern ist die Löschung doch eigentlich eine Routinearbeit? Ich wäre dankbar, wenn du dir das mal vornehmen könntest. Je länger der aktuelle Zustand bestehen bleibt, desto schwerer wird eine Korrektur. --Tordanik 12:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, danke für den Hinweis. Ich bin mir noch nicht ganz klar, welche Folgen eine Löschung für die zahlreichen Seiten hat, die hierhin verweisen. Ich vermute, die Links zeigen dann erstmal ins Leere? Dann sollten wir einen Zeitpunkt abmachen, damit danach gleich die Rückverschiebung der ursprünglichen Seite (und die Korrektur der darauf zeigenden links) anlaufen kann. --Lyx (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Die Aktion so zu koordinieren, dass die Rückverschiebung und Korrekturen gleich nach der Löschung erfolgen, ist natürlich sinnvoll. Ich hätte heute noch bis zum frühen Nachmittag Zeit dafür (schaue auch regelmäßig ins Wiki), ansonsten wieder ab Montag. --Tordanik 07:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ergänzung, nur dass es keine Missverständnisse gibt: Die Diskussionsseite bitte nicht löschen. --Tordanik 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Montag um 18 Uhr würde mir gut passen, klappt das bei Dir? --Lyx (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, das sollte klappen. Bis Montag also. --Tordanik 11:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Alles klar, ich drücke um 18:00 den Löschknopf. --Lyx (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Erledigt, die Rückverschiebung kann jetzt starten (aber da bin raus :-) --Lyx (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Dann mach ich mich jetzt an die Arbeit. Danke! :-) --Tordanik 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


Xxzme again

Sorry to raise this again, but Xxzme is causing problems again. Today's issue is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Xxzme#Nominatim.2FInstallation_page (moving the Nominatim instructions so that any links to them will see only a blank page). According to my count currently there have been 156 changes today. Most add no value, but all will require translators and the people who actually maintain the content to check - a huge waste of time for all involved.

Previous recent problems have included personal abuse (see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-September/thread.html#74080 ).

Can Xxzme please be banned again, permanently this time?

Looks like Harry has banned Xxzme already --Lyx (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed - thanks. --SomeoneElse (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback and change request in upload file message

Hi, now for another and a better reason ;-) Can you please give some feedback in MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext to improve the message shown to users? I'm requesting this to the 3 most active admins. I hope it's not considered spam :-) Thank you in advance. Zermes (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Cmuelle8

Hallo Lyx,

kannst du mal bitte Cmuelle8 vorübergehend sperren (ähnlich den DWG-Kurzzeitsperren) oder ihm als Wiki-Admin klar machen, dass seine Editwars nicht erwünscht ist und er eine Diskussion nicht verweigern soll? Er führt seit einigen Wochen mit mehreren Benutzern einen Editwar auf DE:Relation:multipolygon und Relation:multipolygon. Siehe dazu die Diskussion im OSM-Forum und eine etwas ältere (ebenda).

Reneman liest zwar im Forum mit, hat aber in dem Thread gepostet und kann als "nicht ganz unbefangen" angesehen werden. --Nakaner (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Michael, danke für dein bedachtes Vorgehen :) Grundsätzlich sollte einer Usersperre eine Diskussion direkt mit dem betroffenen User voraus gegangen sein. Es gibt zwar hier einen Anfang aber keine "Verwarnung". Ich habe als Zwischenlösung die deutsche Version DE:Relation:multipolygon für einen Tag gesperrt. In der Hoffnung, dass dieser Zeitraum ausreicht um abzukühlen und Diskussionen mehr Raum zu geben... Gruß René aus Mainz --Reneman (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Wolfgang könntest du dich auf der Diskussionsseite von Cmuelle8 einbringen? Danke dir :) --Reneman (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

False positive with "phone spam 2" filter

I'm trying to edit Multiple_values and get blocked by a spam filter. I've done enough edits before that it shouldn't be a karma issue. There's no phone number or external link in my edits. I managed to pass half the page through, but when I try to pass the next paragraph, even after removing all digits from it, I get blocked by "phone spam 2" again. --Vincent De Phily (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to that filter this morning. Looks like it was sufficient for your edits to go through now. --Lyx (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks. --Vincent De Phily (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Statistics about Blocked accounts

Is there a way to get statistics about the reasons accounts were blocked? or even better ... to get the list of all blocked accounts, without having to scan the list by by block of 50 account as requested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:BlockList (there is an option for 500 but it does not work, and I suspect there are a LOT of blocked accounts)?

There is no statistic that I am aware of. For the users blocked by me, as far as I remember there was one user blocked after a lengthy discussion for disruptive behaviour, two or three users blocked by mistake (and quickly unblocked again) and all the other blocks have been for spam or vandalism. --Lyx (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Once an account is blocked, is it removed from OSM users accounts statistics? --jfd553 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki has its own account system that is not related to OSM user accounts (except that many users choose to use the same account name on both).--Lyx (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand that the blocked accounts I was referring to are related to the Wiki, not the map. Is there a similar list of blocked accounts for mappers? --jfd553 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of a public list, there might be one for the admins. You would have to ask one of the OSM admins; the Wiki administration has nothing to do with OSM user administration. --Lyx (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You could try https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks .--Andrew (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Löschantrag für DE:GPS_Units_for_Loan

Hallo Wolfgang,

kannst du bitte die Seite http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:GPS_Units_for_Loan löschen?

Der GPS-Verleih für Deutschland wurde heute eingestellt, auf der deutschen OSM-Seite habe ich bereits die Referenzen entfernt bzw. durch einen entsprechenden Kommentar ersetzt. Da hier im Wiki die deutsche Seite nur einen Eintrag enthält, kann IMO die Seite gelöscht werden. Für eventuelle Rückfragen stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung. Gislars (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Lars, Ich habe die Seite gelöscht. --Lyx (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to delete some pages

Hi. Sorry if I'm disturbing you. It's just a little request to finish a lengthy process I'm making (probably around 1000-1500 pages, categories and templates moved manually in the last 2 weeks).

I've almost finished the move/fusion of "Pt-br:" (brasilian portuguese) pages to "Pt:" (portuguese) but I need the following 8 remaining pages to be deleted so I can move "Pt-br:" pages to "Pt:" to preserve edit history (I could copy-paste but that wouldn't preserve the edit history). I've requested the deletion of them a week ago but the delete request waiting list is a bit long. These deletion requests are uncontroversial since are only redirects and other 2 are in english and edits only by me, this can be verified in each history page:

Pages with redirect edits only:

Other:

  • Pt:Getting Involved (in English - not translated)
  • Pt:Elements (2 edits by me: 1 exact text copy of Pt-br:Elementos and the other edit is some little changes in words made by me)

Thanks in advance. Zermes (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the pages as requested; as they were flagged for deletion for two weeks now I assume everyone is ok with it. However, as far as I remember quite a few members of the Brazilian community think that pt_PT and pt_BR are sufficiently different to keep these separate versions. So maybe a copy instead of a move might be advised. If you haven't done so yet, please discuss with the community in Portugal and Brazil. --Lyx (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. About the differences between pt-pt and pt-br they are not so much as some people, those against, say. That matter was discussed a lot 2 years ago on page Category talk:User pt. The result was: 15 users in favor, 1 neutral, and 2 against (you can check this easily). Only 2 users from Portugal were against (by the way I'm from Portugal, but I didn't participated in that discussion), everyone from Brazil and 4 from Portugal were Ok about the "fusion". The majority were in favor. One of those 2 against even said "I'm against the joining because there is differentiation between British English e English America (en e en-gb) so we should differentiate Portuguese from Brazilian". What? Of course this is not true in OSM wiki.

The discussion stoped because some thought only those from Portugal should have a chance and only them should vote in the matter. If the majority from Portugal voted again for the fusion (in 6, 4 voted for the fusion), I think one of them against would say: since the majority are from the capital of Portugal, the others from other regions should have a chance to vote isolated too. That wouldn't stop there... And we could say what about Angola users, Mozambique users, East Timor users? They don't have voice here?

This situation happens in Portuguese Wikipedia, sometimes someone want to split in two (pt-br and pt-pt), but that goes against the rules for creating another project language (must be a distinct language, not a regional dialect or a different written form of the same language). See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_European_Portuguese_3 - this one is the 5th proposal to split! In that page I gave my arguments against the split although I didn't needed since the proposal to split goes against the Wiki-Meta rules and those arguments can be applied here. European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese are not languages, they are variations of the same language: Portuguese, with minor differences, like those (more or less) minor differences between British and American English.

Here in OSM wiki, since that discussion in page Category talk:User pt, some people has been tagging for the fusion, like here since 2014, no one say nothing same here and here and moving some pages [2] [3] [4] [5] (and others of course) and no regular editor here (in fact, no one) said something against those proposals, at least from what I know.

I even added in Pt:Main Page in January this wiki/page was for all Portuguese speaking countries: Angola, Brasil, Cabo Verde, Guiné-Bissau, Macau, Moçambique, Portugal, São Tomé e Príncipe, Timor-Leste and places like Goa, Damão e Diu. This page will be the last one I will make the fusion.

After moving more than 1000 pages since 2 weeks ago (21 September), non stop everyday, I only had one user asking what I was doing and where it was decided. I've pointed the same page where the discussion took place 2 years ago and he said Ok and was happy about that. By the way, he talked to me in "Brazilian Portuguese" and I responded to him in "European Portuguese" and we understood our selfs very well. I think this says everything, we don't talk different languages. Anyway I take full responsibility for my actions of course. I've read those pages, every argument and I thought since the majority vote in favor, and the arguments in favor are strong and practical, I will do the necessary work. Many times in the past, I didn't created a "Pt:" version of a tag/key page if there was already an existing one in "Pt-br:". Why? Because I knew someday someone would do the hard work to join them. Deleting one/or simply redirecting would be a disrespect for the editors of one of the pages. For me it was more hard and time consuming to join 10-20 tiny pages (I'm still doing it now in Pt:Map Features sub-pages, but these ones are longer and I'm updating them based on the English version) than moving manually more than 1000 pages.

Sorry for the long text. Any way, thank you again, for you advice and concern too. Zermes (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)