User talk:Dooley

OSMSuspects!

Hi Dooley, packe das einfach alles auf OSMsuspects! - dafür sind unsere WikiSeiten doch da! :-) Viele Grüße --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis, ist soeben erfolgt.

Gern. Ich habe ein paar Kleinigkeiten geändert, hoffe, es passt dir so. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ja, passt. Danke dir.

Lgbtq=* Revision Vote

Hi Dooley, you didn't specify a reason for your oppose vote on the Lgbtq=* Revision proposal. This is a requirement as per the Proposal process. Could you please add a reason to your vote? Thanks in advance. Spughetti (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, they should give a reason for their proposal.

should != must. So i can or cannot give a reason. It's my choice. Dooley (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I've made a topic on the forum so the community can weigh in: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/contributor-refuses-to-provide-a-reason-for-oppose-vote-what-to-do/147672 Spughetti (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Nice. Is that the spirit in OSM now?

[quote="spughetti, post:13, topic:147672"]

refusing to state the reason for an oppose vote on an **LGBTQ** proposal of all things suggests bad faith in all the worst ways

[/quote] Dooley (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

So far you have:

• Voted oppose on an LGBTQ proposal without specifying a reason
• Refused to provide one when asked
• Reacted with a 🍿 emoji on the forum instead of participating in the conversation

None of these things signal that you're acting out of good faith or have a constructive opinion on the proposal. Spughetti (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you expect when you mention me personally in a forum and practically attack me? It is and remains my own business whether I give a reason or not. Would you feel better if, for example, I had stated "There are only two" as the reason?

It is outrageous of you to impute bad intentions to me—and to do so publicly.

And with that, the discussion is over for me. I have no desire to argue about pointless things. Dooley (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Too bad, the voting has already closed, so i cannot add a reason anymore. Anyway, here are my reasons:

• I oppose this proposal.** – The present revision of the `lgbtq=*` schema, in its epistemological ground structure, constitutes a problematic reduction of complex socio-semiotic processes of differentiation. By deprecating the established subkeys `lgbtq:women` and `lgbtq:men` in favor of the generalized, binary-ontological attributes `female=*` and `male=*`, it performs an inadmissible ontological flattening operation that subordinates the inherent intersectionality of queer identity categories to an essentialist gender dichotomy.

Upon closer discourse-analytic examination, the postulated “descriptiveness” and “inclusivity” reveal themselves as mere performative narrative: the proposed mapping strategy fails to recognize the fundamental difference between *gendered queer space* and *sex-based access regimes*. Through the elimination of the queer-specific namespace semantics, the tagological autonomy of LGBTQ+ discourse is sacrificed in favor of a supposedly universal, yet de facto cis-normative taxonomy. This constitutes a form of epistemic violence within the OSM data ontology.

Furthermore, the revision undermines the principle of *verifiability* in its strict, survey-based manifestation: the introduction of hybrid constructs such as `female:transgender` multiplies potentials for ambiguity rather than reducing them, thereby generating a semantic entropy that stands in diametric opposition to cartographic praxeology.

In light of these ontological, semiotic, and methodological incoherences, the proposal must be rejected as a regressive step in the evolutionary development of the OSM tagging cosmos.