Talk:GNSS tracelog/Archive 1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Table not needed?

Verdy_p, I didn't turn it into a table due to it being "needed" or not. It was because it makes the code cleaner and therefore easier to read. Second, legibility has nothing to do with "better" or "worse" which is based on opinion. So unless you can make an argument for how using div, which adds a lot of unnecessary code, is more readable and clearer then a table, I am going to just put it back. In other words, what exactly outside of your personal opinion makes "div" "better"? Just saying its better without given a reason is not a valid reason to change it back. Legibility and edit-ability should extend to the code as well. Plus, doing the same thing with less code is always better. I think those are pretty good reasons in favor of a table. Also, its a table on other translations of this page, which is where I got the idea. Last time I checked your the one that is so concerned about constancy. So does that only page content and not code style? Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You have advocated many times against those tables. But here this is absolutely not a table, just a accurate placement of the image within a div, and semantically this is better. a Wikitables does not make things clearer at all, or does not ease any editing. Formatting with tables, if it can be avoided compeltely like here, should be avoided as much as possible (and the result is also a smaller and cleaner HTML code. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
No, actually I advocated against the tabs. That has nothing to do with tables or the code. As far as your argument against tables in the code goes. Its pretty clear from just looking at the same code with "div" vs tables that the HTML without "div" is much cleaner and easier to read, because like I said before, the "div" thing adds unnecessary characters that serve no purpose. Plus, tables allow the different sections to be spaced apart better. Whereas with "div" everything is together in one long paragraph. Even if it is technically a different section of code. So I don't know where your getting that aside from just saying it. Plus, like I said the other pages don't use "div" so..Do you at least have an article on the web or something to back your assertion up? If anything, it would just be the same, although personally I don't think it is, and in that case your reversion still wouldn't be warranted. I seem to remember requesting in our last back and forth that you leave me alone from now on and stop reverting my edits. I'm just wondering, how exactly are you respecting that? Because if the "div" thing really made that much of a difference, someone else could have put it back the other way without my wish to be left alone being disregard in the process. There are other editors out there. It would at least save us another pointless argument if nothing else...I'm just saying..... Adamant1 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You want tyo change things that were fine since long just on your own opinion. There has been multiple users before you (not just me), and you absolutely don't care about the HTML semantics, translatability, maintenance. Fixing things that have no problems but adding new others and making maintenance more difficult (and lengthy) is just unwanted.
Really you are again using your own limited judgement and don't care at all about what was patiently tuned to progressively fix problems you jsut ignore, byu reinventing a new wheel.
All of your edits had problems I had to fix again (including broken navigation for other languages you don't care at all. Remember this page is a portal which is meant to include various links on the topic. It still has not much links there, but collecting links, make allw them to remain navigatable across languages (including simplifiction the maintenance to find translated articles, avoiding redirects, and so on so they are more naturally grouped and allow all talked topics to be found easily (including from other web sites), and maintaining a compatibility of links (so they don't break), is an important goal: this is the way the wiki can progress and have more pople involved, not less.
I recall you: you are not alone. All changes have to do done incrementally without breaking the navigation, and if restructring is needed, it must be planned and organized. For now you are not adding anything, just removing things you don't like but others (not jsut me) have made as a coherent well structured block (and even if was done years ago, the content is stil lrelevant and offers the necessary introductions to find more technical subtopics easily). This is the role of a portal to have many links, but maintaining these links is long and has to be centralized to save edit costs. We don't want to compe back to the way the wiki was in the past (searching with difficulties pages hidden deeply via some links in just a single language, or only found randomly because we find the link from another unspecifid external website). We have to document the dependencies and make the content stable. Beside tyhat we can fix only minor items. If you want to add significant contents, you can do that, but please don't break the pages that don't have problems just to create new unsolved problems.
You are alone to ignore the other contributors, whatr they did was good nad should be kept as much as possible, especiually here when everything is still relevant (and this project also has an history, you don't look at all at it as I do; I keep as much content as possible until a problem is found and I jsut fix the minimum needed).
I stil lmaitnain that your introduction of a table here is wrong (not made to be "accessible", apparently you don't know what accesibility goals mean on this wiki or any site).
And really I don't see why your tables are simpler than most common divs here for what is semantically not a table but a standard block of text. — Verdy_p (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, same ad hominem personal attacks, flat out wrong generalizations, and already proven wrong arguments you had last time about the tabs in order to put me on the defensive and deflect the fact that your don't have any factual, rule based argument for what your doing and that its all based on your personal opinion. First, not all my edits had problems. Only a few of them, which I had and will continue to have no problem with you changing, like the whole capitalizing titles thing, which is could go either way but I don't really care enough about it to sit here and debate it with for the next month because its not really that important. Not only that, but you don't know what ALL my edits are. So claiming they are all wrong is just flat out false in general. Second, as has already been stated on the tab thing and is also applicable here, the translation pages and the redirects were not effected by anything I did. Plus, NONE OF THE TRANSLATIONS MATCH ANYWAY. So you can go on for hours about links etc, but changing the code from a "div" to a template has zero effect on that BECAUSE ITS THE SAME CONTENT AND YOU KNOW IT. Third, WHERE IS A RULE, A GUIDELINE, OR ANYTHING ELSE that says TRADITION ALONE should circumvent all else or that portals can't be edited? Forth, you don't know squat about my "limited judgement" or if I am trying to reinvent the wheel or not, because you don't know me. So you don't anything about my motivations or why I am doing the edits I am, except for what I said my reasons where in the change-set and what I have written in this comment section. Instead of reading into things unnecessary and trying to divine my motivations, it would be much easier if you just my word for it. It could be that I am new here and don't know jack squat about how to use a wiki, what the particular rules are to this one, how to make edits in minor little ways that satisfy your every neurosis, and that I'm still learning. Or it could be that I just don't things as seriously as you do. So I like to try things to see if they work and if they don't I just revert them myself right afterwords, which I have done on other pages here that you don't and know one really gave a crap, because unlike you they let people fix their own mistakes and don't freak out the second something is changed how they don't like it. Mainly though, I just tend to go by rules and standards, instead feelings, opinions, and nostalgia like you seem to. And within the confine of rules and standards, most, if not all, of this isn't set in stone and there is no "preferred" way of doing things. There's zero anywhere here or anywhere else saying that "div" is the demarked rule of the coding gods way of doing things or that capitalizing both words in a tab title is a sin against the technology gods except in your own head. ITS A FREAKING PREFERENCE BASED ON HOW PEOPLE DID THINGS AT THE TIME. ITS NOT SET IN STONE!! CHANGING IT HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING!!!!!!!! KNOW ONE EXCEPT YOU CARES!!! OTHERWISE, HOW COME 99% OF MY EDITS FOR MONTHS HAVE BEEN LEFT ALONE? LIKE I SAID BEFORE, JUST CITE A SOURCE!!! Outside of that, if I make a spelling error or something, change it all you won't. I don't really care. I never claimed to be perfect or insinuate that I don't make mistakes once in a while. I do know the difference between an actual mistake versus just something that is nitpicking though. And if you are nitpicking, I have every right to ask for evidence to support it and I have no problem saying your correct if the evidence you provide is sufficient enough. P.S. I only capitalized things to mark out my main points so you could skip the ranting in between if you want. I just don't feel like taking the time to underline things or whatever. So don't take the capitals the wrong way. Also, your still not respecting my request to be left alone, nor have you made good argument for why other editors besides you can't revert me if there is a reason. But whatever. I guess that's on you if you want to ignore it and not give me a good reason for why I should have to deal with you when I requested otherwise. Since I am pretty sure there is a no harassment rule around here. I think you would agree with me that rules like that matter as much as, if not more than, something like tradition right? Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, you keep saying "we." Last time I checked this is a community based site that anyone can join and edit. Your not part of an elite club of people that have exclusive rights to edit this wiki and who's word on things outweighs all else. There is no "we." There's just editors. I'm an editor. Your an editor. That's it. We are essentially equal. Our edits have equal weight. There's no us VS them or enemy here. Know one is out to destroy the wiki, especially me. I'm not an "outsider" because there are no insiders. Especially not you. So stop acting like it. Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Once again you are the only one that made personal attacks and used insulting words in *every* post you sent on this wiki. You have constantly ignored the comments found in history, and decided to act alone and added absolutely no content, just broke the existing with no added value at all. You have not followed these pages that have been tuned progressively.
And you made ad nomiem attacks by citing me directly in pages or in your edit comments here again with insults. I've respected what others have contributed here and which is still valid.
If these pages were not updated since long it does not mean they are wrong but nothing needed to be changed because this was still valid.
"ad hominem personal attacks": I oppose your argument and return it directly to you (and there are proofs of it in every comment you used where you constantly made attacks and used abusive words. I have asked you multiple times to prove the alleged "problems" (for mobile users), but you never made any evidence of them. I have made many improvements on this wiki to allow easier navigation on mobiles and allow correct rendering with bidi languages and reduce the maintenance need, but you still want to ignore it. There's lot of evidences everywhere demonstrating that I really care about international users (not just English users like you), and mobile users (of course there's still lot to do on this wiki, but not for this page. I have also cared about various wiki problems detected by the wiki itself and solve thousands of them, each time without removing the contents that others had made. I have helped many people to get what they intended and that was not working due to technical limitations on this wiki. Various things will not be solvable for now as there are still pending problems still not solved in Mediawiki itself (and which is still in development on Mediawiki, notably for the mobile view).
And I also care about maintaining the performance of this wiki (things could be faster if we had some extensions used in Wikipedia, notably Scribunto/Lua and Wikibase, but for now we have to live with those limitations and find some tradeoffs that works on most frequent cases (I perfectly know that some pages on this wikis are no longer working because their content has exploded, notably the page that was listing all OSM features (which will not be solvable as it needs another structure to handle the volume and new organization that is progressively being added, using categories/groups and other indexing/search features). Due to the limitations of this wiki to handle the volume of data this caused a migration of the searchability by using an external service (not hosted by the OSMF) which is also in development and has its own compatiblity issues.
Did you ever participate to discussions or proposals? Did you document anything? (I documented many things everywhere to explain what was already present, even if these were not created by me), and linking to relevant past discussions and other proposals, or half-finished works. Various people contact me to help them explain what is not not working and find a way to have their content correctly rendered, indexed, and usable. Things are not perfect, but unification is not done without maintaining compatiblity (because not everything is changed immediately and lots of things must be updated before we can simplify or unify methods. It is now easier to create new content on the wiki that is relatively easy to find for readers.
I've made numerous talks with various project maintainers on this wiki.
I've made numerous tests on everything (on things that I could find and detect) but there were each time less problems remaining. If you look into the "Cleanup" project, many tasks listed there have considerably progressed, each time by small incremental edits. The goal was always keeping the content accessible.
The nightmare of red links everywhere on this wiki (as it was about 3 years ago) complicated things: many pages because of this were just made witout using links. Pages related to the same topic were not easily found and grouped (without collecting mechanisms to find the existant, it was simply difficult to evaluate the needs and make sure that an edit would not break other pages, notably if they used undocumented tricks: adding the documentation, and adding some checks revealed many contents "hidden" on this wiki; it was hard to evaluate what was old or newer, or duplicated with contradicting statements). Languages were mixed everywhere and it was difficult to start adding new translations (initially there were separate organization for each language, and this splitted the community without easy communication between each subgroup as they were not aware of what others had done (on this wiki or elsewhere).
About capitalization: this is based on common standards and recommandations made on English Wikipedia too. Overcapitalization just complicates the reading and semantics (and complicates the task for translators as it adds ambiguities). Beside the title of artworks (made with a single authorship and taken as an unbreakable referenceable content, it is never needed). You may want to read wikipedia:en:Capitalization in English (everything else does not need capitalization, and even this article does not use titlecase on section headings, which are NOT artwork titles). Using "Titlecasing" is specific to titles of identifiable artworks. This was discussed by a very large community, and titlecasing everything was strongly decided as just being harmful to readers (and especially in translatable contents: this wiki should be almsot fully translatable as it is international and targets international users).
But your social behavior on the way you talk here using flaming words is not acceptable. — Verdy_p (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
First, I'm not rehashing old crap or bringing up the tabs again. Everything I have said is in relation to this discussion about this particular edit. So whatever you have to say about "all my messages" I would just ask you to keep things on topic and relevant to this dispute. On that note, the only place where I have been a little snide or sarcastic HERE was in my last comment, because all this pointless discussion over minor things that just go in circles due to you not being able to stay on topic or cite factual example to back your statements up with is extremely stressful to deal with, time consuming, and completely out of the scope of what I should reasonably have to deal with when making edits. As a new editor that is still learning or otherwise. Especially since I have asked you multiple times to leave me alone and let someone else revert me if there is a serious problem with edits. To which you have still not given a good reason why you can't just leave it up to other people. So, sorry if I'm a little testy in light of your endless nitpicking and dismissive drivel. I don't what you expect. If you endlessly harass someone, you can't expect them to just sit there and take it politely.
Further, your continued assertion that things where not "wrong" before or where "perfectly fine" before I came along is completely pointless and devoid of any meaning BECAUSE FOR THE THIRD TIME, ITS BASED ON YOUR OPINION AND I NEVER SAID MY REASON FOR MAKING THE EDITS WHERE BECAUSE THE PAGES WHERE BAD!! OTHER PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T CARE AT ALL AND IF THEY DO, THEY CAN REVERT ME INSTEAD OF YOU. Also, your argument is based on faulty logic because it assumes that you have any authority to revert me or that your opinion matters to me at all. When it doesn't, because I TOLD YOU TO PISS OFF 16 REVERTS AGO. IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO COME ALONG AND REVERT ME FOR THE SAME REASONS YOU GAVE FINE, it would still be completely wrong, but I would at least give them more of an ear then you, which is none of an ear. BECAUSE I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. I DON'T GIVE TWO LICKS ABOUT BECAUSE ITS COMING FROM YOU AND ALREADY HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR WAY OF DEALING WITH THINGS 16 MESSAGES AGO WHEN I ORIGINALLY TOLD YOU JUST LEAVE ME ALONE. STOP TRYING TO DEBATE NONE SENSE REASONS THAT I DON'T ABOUT WITH ME AND JUST PISS ALREADY. LEAVE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!!! By not respecting my wishing and continuing to debate things that I have said myself multiple times we aren't going to agree on so we shouldn't even bother debating them, YOUR CAUSING THE FLAME WAR. I was fine with respecting what SomeoneElse said about the tabs, and id be fine with what someone else says about my other edits. I'm not going to listen to you though. You haven't done anything except be combative and had an attitude from the start a month ago when you first contacted me and you refuse to compromise on anything. I'm not going to be bossed around by you. Your not having a discussion over best practices or trying to meet me half way, your telling me why I should do things your way and refusing to listen to my points or cede any ground. Plus you just keep repeating the tired disproven talking points over and over that are two general and have nothing to do with the merits of the situation. I've told you multiple times I'm not going to waste my time with it or trying to appease your OCD.
Community Code of Conduct
Be Considerate
Work created by OpenStreetMap is seen by people around the world and by contributing to the project, you're representing not only yourself, but OpenStreetMap itself (HHmmm I seem to remember mention that before and you flipping out on me about it..Interesting. I think its still applicable, although a side thing).
More importantly though --->
Be Respectful
OpenStreetMap contributors come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of skill sets. We believe that our diversity is a source of strength and that everyone has something to contribute to the project. (How exactly does that fit your whole "we" "things where fine before you came along and made the edits" "know one asked you to contribute to the wiki" Thing? Oh right, it doesn't).
However, it is important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. (Hhmmmm how many times have I said I am uncomfortable dealing with you, which you have ignored? uuummm like every time since I told you to get lost after the first message you sent me a month ago? I think so)
Be Collaborative
Collaboration is central to OpenStreetMap (hhhmmm, how exactly is you reverting me endlessly and then using the discussions to preach moralist, none policy, none style based talking points in a diminutive, talking down manor like your somehow better then I am and I'm simply editing things wrong because I'm a naive newbie and then refusing to cede any ground what so ever or respect my boundaries, let alone still arguing about something after you already got your way being collaborative? Oh yeah, its not..It also violates the other two rules, but whatever). Who was the one that last one go and didn't sit there and continue it after the moderator decided what was best to do? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was me...Which goes to the next one..
When we disagree, we consult others (Hhhmmm, who was it that actually did that one instead of just threatening to and then copulating endlessly instead? Oh yeah, that was me to..Who was it that respected what the other person that was consulted said? We know it wasn't you...So...I think that was me to....
When we are unsure, we ask for help (I like this one. Its pretty clear who asked for help both times and it obviously wasn't you)..
Nobody knows everything, and nobody is expected to be perfect in the OpenStreetMap community., I wish I could double bold and double underline that. Who's the one with the perfect standards here that is demeaning someone for not knowing something and for making a mistake? Hhhmm? I think you know...Drum role........Not me.
Lets see, going by the evidence I think that's uummm every single guideline that you have broken...Maybe if you stretch it I've broken the first one, but it was under a lot of duress because of the way diminutive way you have treated me from the start. Which, personally I think is pretty understandable. Its not like I reverted you to start with and then told you piss off when you messaged me to ask a question about it. There was reason you couldn't of just addressed me with respect like a new editor that didn't know the ropes yet. Instead you talked down to me and then refused to acknowledge it or apologize. Otherwise, I wouldn't of even said the few things I did that were in violation of the first rule. So I don't know what you expect. Btw, the definition of ad hominem is "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." quoting the things you said that were insulting is the exact opposite of that because it is literally the position you are maintaining. Where as you arguing against my position by saying "you are again using your own limited judgement" is the definition of one because my personal judgement or how limited it is or not was not what the original discussion was about, nor is it refuting my position. Its just a personal attack. So, maybe look up the definition of the word before you try and use it next time. I think I've said enough now. Maybe consider what I have laid out before you jump to reply and also consider where your disregard for the rules puts you. I can always bring SomeoneElse into it again. I don't think getting him involved again or having him tell you to leave me alone is really a good option at this point though. Since that would be twice in a week that you and your behavior would have been brought to his attention. Just something to think about. Instead, maybe you could respect my wishes and leave me alone? I've given you plenty of opportunities. You should really take them instead of continuing this repeated head butting over minor things. It just looks bad, for you, the wiki, and the organization (Remember the guideline). Plus, whatever you think, remember you initiated this originally. Not me. Another person could have done it instead. I'm fine listening to SomeoneElse or another editor who has actual authority...Just saying... ;) Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Excess of bold everywhere. You ignore the first (and most important rule): respect, and don't insult people like you do. You may read an RFC about it which exists since the begining on the Internet about it. And referenced as a reminder each time a new policy is made. Because you never remind it, in every comment you post there's systematically a clear intent to harass and be harmful (and once again your vocabulary just above is a proof, you cannot talk seriously).
And you have a very personal definition of how you read the definition of "ad nominem". I have never insulted you like you do constantly, and directly against my person, you've not even argued anywthing, you just shout. It is exactrly what you have done (and continue to do) which is a perfect example of ad nominem attack. And you've never consulted anyone (and not the initial creators). — Verdy_p (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Cool. I already said in my message I was being rude at this point and I gave a clear reason why. So pointing it out is really not an argument for or against anything. Neither is the amount of bold I do or don't use. Its a free world and I can use as many as I feel like. "You use bold letters. So I'm right" isn't an argument either. Also, as I've stated I'm disregarding in this instance specifically as a counter point to the fact that you have disregarded it in every instance and because its a stressful situation. I have every right to do so at this point. Plus a couple of insults in one message out of 16 and over using caps pales in comparison to your stuff and its not like you don't use a bunch of hyperbolic exclamation marks in comments to me and everyone else. Like I said, I am perfectly willing to be civil to anyone else and even to you, if your civil to me, but you haven't been. So I no have reason to be. Like every other message you have written, you said nothing of substance, knee jerk responded, and probably didn't even address anything I said. You haven't answered one single question I have asked you or refuted anything I said about you in this or any other discussion topic. Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't have any answers and you can't refute anything I have said, because your completely full of it. Otherwise, just do it. Everything I have said I backed up with evidence. Nothing you have said is backed up with anything except hot air. Also, that definition of "ad Hominem," its an H by the way, is from Wikipedia. Which is both not personal and is also a source that is cited everywhere on this site. So, once again, if your going to claim something look it up first and I already cited a bunch of things you have said against me personally multiple times. I'm not doing it again. And I did consult people, as I said in the message, I consulted SomeoneElse, I also consulted Asreal44, and I consulted you multiple times by messaging you to ask why you reverted me. Although you were to busy acting smug, elitist, and above it all to notice it. I also consulted other people to. Not like you have anyway of knowing that one or another though. Either way, I was talking about within the context of this and the last discussion. Cool if you consulted the creators 15 years ago about something that has nothing to do with the use of "div" or not and that isn't an actual problem in this case. It has nothing to do with topic which is the use of "div," nothing you have said does. Keeping pages in sync doesn't, the translations don't, the whole thing with mobile doesn't because that was the tabs, which I didn't touch this time. Tables don't because getting rid of the "div" thing had nothing to do with tables, it being a portal didn't because it was still one after I changed the div thing, image placement had nothing to do with it because the image was in the exact same place after the "div"s were gone etc etc etc etc etc Ad nauseam. They weren't even to start with. I had already thought of those things before I made the edit. I had already dealt them before I made edit. I already told all this before multiple times. Your not the only that thinks of those things. You don't have special knowledge. Your not the only that talks to people. I knew about all that crap long before you brought it up and had already accounted for them. Just like last time. Just like next time. Just like the time after that. Thinks for bringing it to my attention, but your not the only one that knows how to make a "correct" edit. I just have a different idea of what makes a good wiki than you and I'm allowed to have it. I'm also allowed to make edits that turn it that way. No two editors are going to have the same idea for a wiki and there's no rule or guideline that says otherwise. So you have no leg to stand on and you never have.
Those disproved excuses you make that I cited above are just convent talking points that help you deflect, sound more knowledgeable, and make false appeals to authority, I.E. yours. Its all you do and you know it. You recite the same wrong baseless things over and over even after they have been refuted. Have fun with that. I'll also point out that I am pretty civil in every other conversation here, on OSM in the hundreds of notes where there are discussions, and also on Github where I contribute code to the project. I also compromise constantly in all those places. Just not with you in this case because you and your attitude are the problem. I can back it with hundreds of examples in those three places. Whereas all you have is a bunch of contentious discussions with me and other people on here where you either talk down to everyone or lecture them. Those are the facts. Ignore them if you want, but it doesn't change it. Your continued attitude and disregard for the guidelines, basic collaboration, or even a minimal respect for how others would like the wiki to be is the issue. That's it. Its your issues, not mine. You instigated this due to your actions and attitude and your causing it to continue with the same things. Just look at the evidence.
I'm done with the conversation now. Next time you do a similar thing as you did with the "div" thing and condescend (google it) to me, I'll just contact a moderator. when I do, I'll make sure to point them to this discussion and the multiple times you ignored me asking you to leave alone. Plus where I outlined the guidelines you disregard. Maybe do yourself a favor by leaving it at this and not knee jerk responding to my message this time OK? Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm done with your repeated insults and moderators are already seeing your talks as abusive. You are ignoring the first rule since always in everything you posted: respect, no insults, this is not a guideline, this is a rule you constantly want to ignore. — Verdy_p (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Your the one that originally converted the page code from whatever it was before to the "div" thing like you did on ome of the translated pages right? Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)