User talk:Adamant1/Archives

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

Also I don't know why you think that tabs don't work on mobiles. There's no problem at all (but yes some long tab bars should be a bit shorter, however this wiki cannot be really navigated in landscape mode without using an horizontal bar: there are lots of tables everywhere).
The wiki is perfectly usable on mobiles in landscape mode if the horizontal resolution in portrait mode is not wide enough).
We try to have pages reasonably usable on mobiles but this wiki is not tuned at all for mobiles (it still does not have the MediaWiki extension that allows tuning the layout). So standard browsers are needed: on mobiles, most users are using iOS and Android, and their native browsers are quite good (if not, users can still download Chrome on Android; no problem on iPhones)
There's no support at all for other lower end ranges of mobiles on other mobiles OSes (they are falling out of market rapidly).
On tablets, most users also use Android, iOS, or Windows, and the space available is large enough to display tabs.
Note that changing horizontal tabs by vertical lists is boring for users of desktops and tablets. Ideally we should be using "flex" layouts which better scale to all screen sizes, but this requires HTML5 and recent browsers supporting this layout. "Flex" layout is available on mobile browsers since Android 4.4, but we still have users with older versions of Android and older browsers, so for now we still use tabs created with tables (just like many pages of this wiki that contain various tables).
Introducing flex layouts will be tried but progressively. For now it's still safer to use multicolumn block layouts (which can adapt to display width with some efforts provided we don't use very long lists that require vertical scrolling to go from the bettom of a column to the top of the next column).
But navigation menus using tabs are reasonably working on all mobiles phones used with the landscape orientation. Supporting mobiles in portrait will require using flex layouts but we still need to wait about a couple of years, or it will be done progressively. (and for maitaining compatibilyt it would require adding some javascript framework, something still not possible on this wiki, and this also requires a more recent version of MediaWiki to support better integration of CSS; this cannot be done because of limited capatilities of the server hosting this wiki, which also still cannot use Scribunto/Lua modules: this wiki is not Wikipedia, it is much smaller and has limited resources). — Verdy_p (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Reply to|Verdy_p)

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

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

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

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

In fact even on my smartphone, there's no problem at all in portrait mode (I don't need any horizontal scrolling: tabs are properly sized, possibly with wrapped labels to allow compaction on verry narrow screens. And what you did was to duplicate the content across several pages. I do not see any benefit or ease of maintenance of navigation. And you did that for a single page but the overall site has much larger pages, with lots of tables and is not really intended to be navigatable in portrait mode on a narrow smartphone. And all smartphones sold today have ample enough resolution. And tabs are easier to navigate with a finger (due to their margin), than list of links (which are wasting vertical space and not easy to locate for basic navigation across tightly related pages. I do not see any reason to change that, your given two reasons were simply wrong, and your change does not improve anything, it is just inconsistant and LESS navigatable than before, less accessible, and it wastes space on large screens.
Once again it there's something to do, it's not to reintroduce vertical buletted lists (very old fashion), but introduce REAL mobile concepts (and notably "flex" layouts, which for now should be limired and tuned to make sure they are correctly rendered with reasonable fallbacks on older desktop or mobile browsers).
You are new on this wiki, and this cannot be changed like this and without in fact any benefit. You are also starting to edit archived pages that should be left as is (only maintained to avoid breaking links, but without changing the archived contents like you do: adding strikes on section titles of archives goes nowhere, it just obscures more these archives, and does not add or fixes anything).
And now with your changes we have inconsistant pages which were kept in sync. Tabbed pages are used on many projects on this wiki and it's unlikely that the real maintainers of these pages will accept you start desynchronizing things when we tried to unify the presentation and translations, and the navigation. This tab template has been tested and used by many people. You are the first do complain (but only after making the change which just adds new complications for maintenance). This wiki has various problems but you concentrate here on something that was not asked, not needed at all. Note also tyhat there are no bots on this wiki. All is done by humans and such navigation template is done so that it is easily integrable and reused, without having to edit multiple pages. — Verdy_p (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

But you are now doing a personal attack with unusefully agressive terms. Did I agress you ? You did not provide any evidence that something was wrong. If it is wrong on your smartphone, because it is antique and represents a few users for a device that cannot be found elsewhere (or is no longer supported, open to many more unsolvable problems because it no longer has any support), meaning your case is not reproductible, this is a problem of you only.
Long vertical lists in pages with very wide blank margins are very boring, and not more accessible if it requires scrolling down and down for links that were initially related and grouped logically together. There are already better ways to do that, and your "solution" is just a lazy one basically used for 1st time editing or temporary changes that will be removed. That page was there since long and referenced already. And in fact you did not add any useful thing to it, and want to spend time on things that were solved since long.
And yes we care about keeping the site usable in all languages and as much as possible in sync, and standardizing the navigation without surprize, using reusable tools (removing this unification is just returning to the state this wiki was 2 years, ago: not navigatable, hard to search info, largely unmaintained contents because of its severe fragmentation. Unification plays a role to build a community even with those for which you don't understand the language (this wiki has translators that can create the links, nobody is alone here). And you've still not proven that something was broken.
Translatibility and easier maintenance allowing incremental construction is part of the goal. This wiki has guidelines you should read (this documentation allopws finding contents, creating links that go to the expected target, allow sorting the content, even if a translation is not available for now.
Nothing is perfect but there are many people invoilved and a long history of discussions and why things are done or not done. Basically it requires long days of work to solve solutions, but here you just assert there's a problem and don't show which one it is, just drop content and rewrite, in my opinion this is just loss of time for everyone including you.
Even if nothing is perfect it does not mean that the content must not be organized, and we have to facilitate the work that remains to do and avoid breaking was is already done (even if it's not fully finished, sometinh that will in fact never happen as all will continue to evolve, including the tools used here or the way to access this information).
This wiki is used most often with an editor, and a small smartphone is not the best way to use a wiki and make its content evolve. This wiki is intended mostly for OSM editors and at least they use a tablet. Some kinds of contributions are made with dedicated mobile apps, but they take the wiki as a source which is reprocessed by the mobile app. Standard Web browsers in small smratphones are in fact very poor on all sites except if they are specifically designed with a mobile interface (which is still not the case of this one), and the content is relatively static and has a single source. This wiki lacks the tools needed to create multiple UIs for different devices. The tabs that were in that page were correct on most devices, and still usable even if it evntually required scrolling a few pixels horizontally; now we have to scroll down full pages, this is not a progress. And links packed in a vertical bulleted list are difficult to press on a mobile: you have to zoom in to select the correct one (this was not necessary with the tabs which were intended for fast navigation). — Verdy_p (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why you are editing private pages?

Especially deleting content from talk pages like at ? I am also surprised by edits like Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

UUmmmm, as far as talk pages go, it was something I was avoiding and that I generally think shouldn't be done, but then most if not all of the talk pages related to Kosmos where just direct copies of a main page about it. So I wasn't deleting anything that was unique or couldn't just be cut and pasted back in if need be. Plus, most of those user pages are from like 2010 and I doubt the people are around anymore. Also, I looked around for a rule about deleting user page content and I couldn't find one. So, well I might agree its disturbing to do in general, if there is no guideline about it, than I don't know. I used Wikipedia guidelines as a fall back though at least. It seems to be fine to do there. So I figured, why not here? Since its based on the system and there is a lot of overlap. I do think the lack of guidelines on this wiki for basic things like that or when a revert is ok are troubling and should probably be provided somewhere. Otherwise, a lot of unnecessary arguments happen and stuff gets deleted that shouldn't. Usually if no guideline is given, people will just do what they feel like. Even if it is the wrong thing. I'm not unique in that. I also thought if it was that big of a deal that the moderator could just undue it when they came by to delete the page. There was also nothing mentioned on the cleanup project about what pages shouldn't and shouldn't be deleted if they are part of a cleanup project. So...
As far as the other thing goes, why is that one particularly surprising? To me its no different than the other ones and the same reason I gave above applies to it. In general, I want to do anything that breaks the rules. So if I you think I shouldn't be deleting user page content and if there is a good guideline about it somewhere I can read, feel free to say so and I'll stop doing it from now on. Even in cases where the content is completely worthless and can easily be found in other places if need be. Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Generally I would considered user pages as special - user pages should not be linked from main space articles, user pages that should be edited only by associated users, even if content is outdated or wrong (except cases like spam etc) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. So I won't edit them anymore. Thanks for the advice.

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

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

signing help (one more overcomplicated technical thing - sorry)

See - it is from Wikipedia, but is applies to any Wiki running on the same software Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Archives are to be kept

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

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

Stop blanking

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

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

I can understand leaving an explanation about why the tag shouldn't be used, but a lot of the pages I blanked had rules about how to still use the tag. Which just encourages people. Its important to have the depreciated symbol and information on the right side panel to instead of just having a little red notice half way down it. Like landuse=pond for instance. The could be said for the power=sub_station tag which has around 20000 thousands uses. New mappers wont necessarily scroll down to see the little red area and will glance over it and decide to use it anyway. Further, most of the other depreciated tags where already blanked. So I was only following already established procedure. Also, just having a little thing that says the page is depreciated without having the banner doesn't add it to the depreciated tags category. A lot of the pages I added the banner to weren't in one and now they are potentially taken out of it again. So there's that to.
As far as translation pages goes, Google Chrome has a translate function that works quit well. Plus in most cases they are just copies of the America page. So id hardly say I have no understanding of the pages. The ones that weren't clear though, I left alone and its not like everyone else doesn't screw around with pages that aren't in their main language anyway. For instance 99% of the crap Verdy_P does isn't in French and I don't see anyone caring. Sorry, but I'm not here to get chastised for things most other people do and everyone edits pages in languages they aren't dominate in.
Finally, if you could contact me before you revert a bunch of my edits next time id really appreciate it. There might be reasons I did them that are legitimate, which you just happened to miss. I don't feel like edit warring over things or having my work undone by someone that just has a different opinion about something then I do either. Especially considering there isn't anything anywhere saying depreciated pages can't be blanked and it was already done a massive amount of times before I came along. So now I'm stuck going with your opinion since you reverted me even though your way might be wrong, or I'm edit warring if I change them again how I think it should be. Which isn't fare to me. Talking to someone before destroying their work is always a better way to go.
I am not against deleting parts that encourage using tag that should not be used. But for example had an useful historic info that should be kept (maybe updated), not deleted. The whole point of Wiki is to document how ad why tags are used to avoid repeating the same discussions 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I can understand where your coming from. I started editing the wiki because I keep seeing people make the same mistakes over and over on the map. So I agree its important to maintain information if that is of historical value. So there wont be repeated problems or disscussions. Its hard to tell what is worth saving or not, and it seems like most dissussions about how particular pages should be modified go nowhere and there arent good guidelines to follow either. So I rather just cut through the jungle and get things done. Even if it means a few mistakes. I apologize if I got rid of something that should have stayed in the proccess though. Considering this and the user page debacle I could probably be a little less gung ho with my edits. Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately nothing wrong happened (except that first I got a bit irritated and later you got in turn irritated after I reverted part of your edits) - reverting and looking at history in wiki is much easier than OSM database. "seems like most dissussions about how particular pages should be modified go nowhere" - yes, and it is hard to balance between avoiding useless discussion and avoiding big undiscussed edits. And there is plenty of wrong or missing documentation on wiki that should be fixed... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Blanking" second round

I second Mateusz. Please stop blanking pages of old proposals, like Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant, Proposed_features/agricultural_access, Proposed_features/emergency_vehicle_access. Please do not use Template:delete if the page has content is not empty and orphaned page. Use Template:delete proposal instead because that proposal is a call for discussion.
The proposals whose pages have been blanked by you have been marked as rejected. The labelling as rejected is enough to inform readers about the status of the tag. In some cases an additional Template:ambox at the top might stress the rejection (see motorcycle_friendly as an example). In addition to that, the their talk pages and the votes on the main page of the proposal contain comments by other users explaining their decision in favour or against the proposal. You delete the archive of tagging descisions by deleting these pages.
That's why I ask you to revert your blanking. --Nakaner (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Nakaner, first, I am not "blanking pages." I'm putting a deletion request up on the pages. Which is within my right to do. Its unfortunate that it requires the content being temporary vacated from the page, but I didn't create the delete template and the content is still there in the history and can be recovered. Second, 99% of the pages I put the template on either had no content, discussion, or if it did have those things they were worthless. Just because a page has letters and paragraphs on it doesn't mean that its of value. Its not like I didn't consider that when I was putting up the deletion requests. Further, 99% of the proposals I did it to hadn't been edited or up dated in ten years. Yes, I could of put a deletion request up first, but it would of took another ten years for anyone to come along and give a crap. As is evidenced by the multiple pages I have come across with six or seven year old deletion requests that never get addressed. I'm not into discussion that never goes anywhere either and that seems to be the preferred way of doing things around here. I have better things to do.
Also, the fact that there has no edits or discussion on a page for ten years is an indicator that know one cares about it. Especially if they only have one edit to start with and zero discussions. I'd also add that despite your and Mateusz complaints, there have been multiple pages I have put requests on that have been deleted and there have many pages that where not deleted that I removed the label myself from after a few weeks of being ignored by the admins. So if the page should be deleted it will be and if not I usually deal with it and reverse the deletion request myself. Having a random empty page blanked for a week is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Having a bunch of worthless pages are confusing to navigate and serve no purpose is a little bit more of one and more people have said the wiki could use some cleaning and reorganizing then you and the two others that have complained about my actions, in to vague of a way to be productive.
In general, I don't appreciate vague attacks involving all my edits. Some have merit and some probably don't. I'm not going to stop what I'm doing though based on a vague command of "not blanking pages" by you, Mateusz, or anyone else. I have as much right to use the tools of the wiki how I see fit as you guys do and if it doesn't break the rules there's no reason I should stop doing it. If you have a specific complaint about specific pages fine. There's always the discussion pages of those deletion proposals where you can air your grievances about those particular pages. Like the deletion proposal says to do. If you have a specific issue with those particular pages you cited, fine. Delete the "blanking" on those specific pages and put up a deletion request. I don't really care. I'll just come back in a few months after the deafening silence because know one really cares and "blank" the page again. Then the pages can be reviewed by an admin and they can decide whats worth deleting or not like its their job to do. Sometimes progress involves risk, temporary setbacks, and getting attacked by people who are anti progress. I'm willing to accept that. The vast majority of deletion proposals are perfectly valid though and they will be deleted just most of the other ones I proposed for deletion where and I am going to keep doing it where I feel like its appropriate. I talked to an admin about the whole thing a few times too and he generally agreed with me. So its not like I'm just running rick shod all over the wiki without any thought like you and Mateusz act.
Thanks for the comment though. Next don't come right out of the gate with the attacks or bossing me around though. Also, stick to specifics. Otherwise, its not going to be productive. I have better things to do then defend myself endlessly on things that are so general there is no way to satisfy the other person except by kowtowing and stopping what I'm doing completely, which I'm not going to do. I also don't respond well to being told what to do. Especially by someone I don't know in the first message they send me. It's just condescending, unnecessary, and there's really no particular reason I should listen to you anyway. At least with Mateusz we had little bit of report established from other places before he started in. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

@Adamant1: Why do you blank pages anyways? Blanking pages gives no benefit to you, me, or anyone on the wiki. Archiving them is a much better idea. Trust me, you don’t want a whole community of OSMers attacking you over something very trivial that you’re doing which gives no benefit to anyone. I’ve been through it. — EzekielT (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@EzekielT: Thanks for the question. Why don't read the answers I already gave multiple times here and in other places though? I'll still answer you. Even though I don't think its worthy of an answer in first place. Since its obviously a stupid question and primiss. First though, how do you know it has no benifit? Since when do you talk for or know the wishes of everyone on this wiki? There are way more people that think the wiki needs cleaning up and reorganizing then there are the bandwaggoning, antiprogess, bullies on this talk page who rather harrase me here instead of making an arguement on any individual for why it should stay. That's becausae they know they have no real arguement, are just fear mongering, and will be ruled against. Let them act like bullies though. I respect their right to be that way. I'm just not giving into it because it just inboldens them to act that way more. Nothing is more destructive and toxic to a project then this kind of thing. As much as they claim I'm anti history etc, they are doing way more to destroy this project and diswayed people from contributing to it with their attituteds then I am by requesting a few outdated pages be deleted.
As far as why I don't just archive pages, it would really depended on the page and its not like I didn't consider that. A lot of them didn't have anything worth archving though and a lot also already had requests for them to be deleted. How come the miniorty of antiprogress goons here channel their fake rage into archiving the articles in the first place or go harrase the people who originally requested the page be deleted? I shouldn't have had to do it in the first place. Let alone should I have to deal with their attitudes when they are the ones that slacked off on basic maintance of the wiki in the first place. At least I'm trying to do something about it instead of doing nothing except blowing out hot air.
Also, a bunch of the pages I have requested be deleted have been. The people above either ignore that fact outright, call it a fluke, or just insult the admins instead of just admiting they are wrong and moving on with their lives. Again, why should I give in to that kind of behavoir? I create the delete templete in the first place either. so its not on me for using a tool the wiki provides. If they have such a problem with it, they should ask the DWG to ban the ability to delete pages. We'll see how that goes. Archving pages doesn't deal with the underlining reasons I started requesting pages be deleted in the first place either, like abandoned proposals coming up in searches before the pages for the correct tags do, here and on Google Search, the over complication of keeping the pages around causes new editors looking through the wiki, etc etc etc. None of those things have been addressed at all. Although as I have said, most of the pages didn't contain anything usefully historically or otherwise anyway and had already been requested for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Polarbear w: Actually, people did attack me. Verdy_P has gone as far as saying my degree is worthless and that everything I do is worthless. Among a bunch of other things. Matuesz also requested on OSM-Talk that other editors gang up to convience me not request pages be deleted, something I consider borderline harrasement, and insulted the administrators for deleting some of the pages I requsted be deleted. Further, I did disscuss it ahead of time with multiple people. There are more people that think the wiki should be cleaned up, that the pages cause problems with searching, and don't help new mappers then there are the anti progress bandwagoners. Also, a lot of those pages didn't have any content in them anyway or there was already requests they be deleted. That being said, my tone above could have been better and I sent the person an apology message. Its not like you accussing me of beeing an iconoclast, book burning heretic for requesting a few obscure pages be deleted is any better though. In fact, I have a sociology degree that was heavy in historical studies and my carrier is dependent on combing through old books etc. Plus I spent most of childhood in libraries because my parents were to poor and sick most of the time for me to indulge in any other activities. Asking pages be deleted has zero to do with it though and its utter obsered you or anyone else would use that kind of fear mongering as a tactic to sway my opinion. Outside of that, read my message above this one for the actual reasons for putting up the deletion proposals and maybe next you message me show enough respect to leave your overly privlaged, pompous opinions about my lack of respect for history, and knee jerk crap at the door. Its not productive, majorly insulting, simply wrong, and I'm tired of hearing it. Also, as I've told everyone else, if you have actual issue with any particular page being deleted, bring it up in that page so it can be disscussed by other people in the community. None of you will though because you know it wont go your way and if you don't like pages being deleted, ask the DWG to ban the ability to do it. See how far you get with it. Otherwise, stop harrasing me about it. I'm not going to play this game either where I have to be on perfect behavior or I'm the one with the attitude, while everyone else says whatever they want and treats me with utter disrespect whithout being called out for it.
@Adamant1: What I think I meant to say was that it isn’t worth the fight. Deleting pages doesn’t really do much difference or help the wiki in a significant way and isn’t worth it. Give up in whatever you believe in. People such as User:Polarbear w and the others will always revert your actions until they are either gone from the planet forever or have left OSM. I’m serious. — EzekielT (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@EzekielT: Oh OK. I guess your right. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and believed they would be willing to listen to reason. I was clearly though. I also keep seeing the same issues pop up on the map repeatedly and get into a lot of arguments with editors there who use the problems with the wiki as an excuse to justify their bad edits. So I thought improving things here would help there and I had more respect for people like Polarbear w originally then I did random mappers. So I thought him and others would be easier to deal with. Your probably right though that it doesn't ultimately make a difference and that they will just reverting me. The loudest people in the room always seem to get their way. Even if they are in the minority and completely in the wrong. I'll probably find other ways to deal with things or just spend more time in the real world for a while. Its disappointing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting proposal pages

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

I have also used the abandoned / rejected proposal pages as a guide to look further for a tag that's already in use. For example thinking "highway=boat_ramp" but ending up with "leisure=slipway". MikeN (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tordanik. You make a good point. A lot of the proposals I asked for deletion where extremely old and had no comments. A few weren't though and did. On those ones I wasn't aware that archiving was an option and I was originally doing this as a way to maybe help lower the amount of bad tagging I have seen on the map. So I weighed the quality of the comments with if the pages being there would contribute to low quality mapping. Some of them I imagine are rather misleading to new mappers if they come up in searches for key terms or something. Plus there was discussion I was reading about how ID editor will still recommend outdated not used tags if there is still a wiki page for them. Archiving the pages instead in those situations might be a better option though. Although I don't know if it helps Id editor, at least it will better deter new mappers from using the tags. So I appreciate you bringing it to my attention as option and fixing the few pages that needed it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
P.S. on the zip line main page it says it is de facto in the approved green. So I am miss interpreting the meaning of that or should it be changed to "in use"? Also, is there never a point where something gets accepted by the community without going to a vote? It seems a little wrong to say a tag is not approved even if it has thousands of users by hundreds of editors and is being rendered on the main map just because it hasn't been approved by three people on a talk page. Plus it potentially pollutes the proposal categories with a bunch of false positives. Id like to know your thoughts on it to MikeN. Thanks --Adamant1 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
"approved" means approved by voting, not by use. "in use" means many people use the tag. That is a clear distinction that should be kept to understand the processes. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I kind of understand that, but it seems like a superficial distinction at this point. Since they are both just essentially the same form of use consensus, although with different mechanism. Plus, it seems like voting isn't really in vogue anymore. Not to mention "in use" versus "approved" versus "proposed" have different connotations. "Widely in use" should be at the same level as approved in meaning and weight, but it is currently lower then proposed. It makes it hard to have conversations with regular/new editors about their tagging methods and edits on the actual because in the "real world" the distinction is pointless. People, especially new editors, just go with what sounds good or comes up in ID editor. There's no distinction made, nor would they care about it if there is. I wouldn't be bringing it up in the first place and I don't expect you to solve the problem, but it still causes major quality issues and a lot of pointless discussions that could otherwise be avoided. Plus 99% of the users of open street maps don't use the wiki anyway except superficially, let alone involve themselves in the voting process. I understand the reasons why voting was created originally, but it seems the world has mostly moved on, and I think at this point tagging usage, tag documentation, etc etc should be based on more of an organic system that takes into account the wider audiences this map caters to and not just a few wiki coders. The wiki should serve and aid the map. Not the other way around. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The two base proposition of your arguments, voting isn't really in vogue and 99% of the users ... don't use the wiki lack any evidence, they are purely invented from your personal opinion. That renders the conclusions you draw invalid. --Polarbear w (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
First, I agree my tone above was inapropriate. He had also sent me another message accusing of me using bots to automotic edits though because I committed the sin of modifying 100 tags over a short period of time. So there was more going on. That doesnt excuse my behavior though and I sent him an apology. That being said its pretty easy to jump into the end of the conversation that had nothing to do with you and throw around accusations, like that I'm a book burning, icono clast heritic that has no respect for history. Yet I'm the one with the attitude. On that accusation, I happen to have a degree in sociology. Getting it and my carrier is heavly dependent on history. So its a completely accusation for that reason. Not to mention I my justification what I'm doing had zero to do with history or anything related to it and I said multiple times that I was fine with people modifying my edits and that I would change my strategy. So I dont even know what the point in your messages are except to pile on the crticism ive already recived multiple times. And yet, I have the attitude.
Second, you dont know what I am basing my propsostion about voting on and I could just as easily so you dont know either. So thats really an argument for anything and is just pointless mud slinging. Maybe next you could show some of the manors your attacking me for not having by asking me what I am basing things I say on, instead of just discounting it off hand. I admit I could be over estimating and maybes its more like %75 or something. I doubts its that low though. I could give you specific examples, but then youd just find some other way to discount it by nit picking some minor detail. Thats fine. Ultimately though, I'm just doing exactly what other people have done and its with in the rules. Like ive said to others, your free to disscuss the merrits of each page in the their disscussions or just revert me if you feel its meritted and in the mean I'll improve my strategy. If you want to disscuss specifics or modify the rules to push your agenda, im fine with all that to and I'll follow whatever rule modifications are made. In the mean time though, I'm not going to spot what I'm doing becuase of some fake outrage and cries of book burning. I can also forward you and the ther perel clutchers the hundreds of messages/arguements I get in on the map because of the current state of the wiki. So you guys can deal with them. Since your the once that seem to be against progress and care more about "history" then map quality. I mostly started editing the wiki to maybe stem the arguements there, but its just led to arguements here. So I guess its worthless to try and make progress on either side. Lesson learned. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OSM-Talk comment about me

"OSM-Talk comment about me" - can you link the comment that you are mentioning here? I am not remembering making one (this is response to ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk)

Mateusz: Apparently Adamant1 is so surprised that, despite the length of his essays, hardly anyone is convinced by his deletion concepts, he feels that opposition from the community is 'ganging'. Probably he refers to this message on the talk list, which contains a reference to your name but is not authored by you. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Polarbear w:, thanks again for jumping on the back of another conversation you had nothing to do with in the first place and contributing nothing to it. Is really that surprising I got one thing wrong while juggling 7 different conversations all involving the same stupid questions I already answered repeatedly? Sorry my answers weren't concise enough for you, but last time I checked this is my talk page and I can write things here how I wan't. At the end of the day your comments aren't constructive and are just adding to the noise. So, do me a favor and get off my talk page now. Feel free to waste my time more by harassing me on changeset comments like you have been though if you want. Its not like I don't better things to do then defend myself over and over on perfectly fine edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Polarbear w:, P.S. also feel free to read the two comments on that osm talk page saying I did nothing wrong, that the wiki could use cleaning up, and giving the same reasons for it that I gave. Along with my discussion with SomeoneElse on his talk page and Verdy_P's talk page where he said the exact same thing. There is also a discussion on the OSM forum about the short comings of the proposal process and how it needs to be changed also. Out side of you and the few other loud people here, the rest of the community clearly disagrees with you. Including EzekielT above. No to mention there was only two responses to the talk page comment and they both disagreed with you. So if this such a huge issues that everyone is against like you claim where is the outcry by everyone else? While you wait for it, Have fun pushing your bias opinion as if it is that of the communities in general. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)