User talk:Adamant1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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)


@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 : 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 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. [ 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 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 This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (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 ( 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 This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (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. 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)