User talk:Lyx

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

USA Tipps

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

Cleaning up the wiki

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


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

about abusefilter extention

You can auto-block userpage spam : But nned to install abusefilter extention. Crochet.david (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont think this ban was deserved

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

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

Wiki edit disputes


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of his vandalism:

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

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


Dear Aseerel4c26, Dear Xxzme,

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

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


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

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

Deleted my user page

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

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

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

Wo kann man Spammer melden?

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

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

Löschung von Proposed features/House numbers/Karlsruhe Schema

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

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

Xxzme again

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

Previous recent problems have included personal abuse (see ).

Can Xxzme please be banned again, permanently this time?

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

Feedback and change request in upload file message

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


Hallo Lyx,

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

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

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

False positive with "phone spam 2" filter

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

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

Statistics about Blocked accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Löschantrag für DE:GPS_Units_for_Loan

Hallo Wolfgang,

kannst du bitte die Seite löschen?

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

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

Request to delete some pages

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

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

Pages with redirect edits only:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hallo Wolfgang,

could you please help Verdy_p to take a break of a few days? Since our last conversation in real life he has continued his changes and moved lots of pages. I hope that during his break he understands why he was blocked. --Nakaner (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nakaner (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Verdy_p Again

Hallo Wolfgang,

ich glaube, die letzte Sperre von Verdy_p war für die Katz. Neulich hat er die Leute auf der Mailingliste Ulmer-Alb verärgert. Mir ist egal, was und ob du machst, aber ich wollte dich nur informiert haben. Am sonstigen Editierverhalten scheint sich nicht allzu viel verbessert zu haben. Die meisten Änderungen sind immer noch unkommentiert. Er ist mir nur seltener durch mein Sichtfeld gelaufen. --Nakaner (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Spam filter false positive

Hi, I presume you are a sysop. If so, can you please whitelist, or remove from any blacklist ''. I am simply trying to edit an existing page, but am prevented from saving due triggering your spam filter. I hasten to state I did not add said blocked text - it seems to be transcluded from an existing template.

Thanks. Teutonic Tamer (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, that string is not listed in any of my spam filters, and the abuse filter log did not record any blocked edit attempts by you, so you are probably hitting a different filter. Can you show the exact message that you get when trying to save your edit? That would help me to identify the filter that is causing the problem. --Lyx (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin wanted scheint etwas festgefahren. Da hilft nur noch ein Admin. Danke! Mmd (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Danke für das Locken der DIDOK Seite. --Datendelphin (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The "childcare" tag on Map Features page

Lyx, thanks for your help. I tried to do that, and was able to add all the fields. However, I was unable to add the icons under the fields "Element" and "Rendering." I also don't have a photo, but I think that's not necessary in this case. Do you know how to add the icons? By the way, I was able to copy the icons from the page the childcare tag, but couldn't get them to paste into the editing template. techlady

There appears to have been a misunderstanding. As far as I can see you edited the "Map Features" page directly; that will not work. I suggest you revert your changes on that page. Instead you need to edit the Template:Map_Features:amenity which opens if you click on "This table is a wiki template with a default description in English. Editable here." on the bottom of the amenity section. On that template you have the documentation on what the fields in that template do, and below the documentation there is the actual template that you need to edit. Please make use of the "preview" function when editing this template and only save your changes when your finished, because changes to that template will trigger the re-rendering of more than a hundred pages on the Wiki. --Lyx (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: easiest way to add childcare to the "Education" block in the amenity template will be to open the template as described above while logged in, then scroll down until you find the "Education" block header and the click on the source edit link next to it. That way you will only open the table for the "Education" block. Then copy an existing row definition (which starts with a line beginning with |- and ends immediately before the next such line). Move this copy to the position in the table where you want to insert the new row and adapt the individual lines, so when you copied e.g. the "college" block then "college" becomes "childcare" in your copy. Look at e.g. the music_school definition to see an example without an icon or photo. --Lyx (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Lyx, thanks again. I'll proceed carefully. I was not sure whether to put it under Education, but it seems the best of the options. Lyx, At this point I can find no rendering icon for this tag. Do you know what is accepted practice? I know of a free image source with icons. I could search there. Also, do they have to be SVG icons? I bought three nonattribution icons for $1 each. I'd like to share them with you for your opinion, but don't have your email. I'll also try to contact other people who worked on the tag. I'm still not sure how to get the icon hosted. Where do I upload it?

Lyx, Thanks again for your help, but I've had to put the addition of "amenity=childcare" to the Map Features page on hold while I deal with the icon issue. I have learned the technical specs, but am still checking the licenses of the icons I have suggested. It may take a while to work out all that.

Category:Labelled for deletion

Can you look at Category:Labelled for deletion? There are 500+ entries, some since 2016 (I am unable to do this as I have no sysop rights) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you consider looking at this category? Backlog is smaller but there are still hundreds of pages stuck there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lyx: Danke, fleißig, fleißig! :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for processing it, now it is almost empty! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you look at it again? It filled with 300+ entries. BTW, do you have any idea who and how may be nominated for sysop? It seems that you are the sole person with both sysop rights and using them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Several users are currently checking if all the wiki pages for the towns in Germany are really necessary. Most of them are stubs or have not been edited for 3 to 8 years. In addition, user User:Raubraupe proposed many pages for deletion which are not linked from any other page and/or almost empty (disussed at OSM-Samstag in Bonn two weeks ago). --Nakaner (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you again but Category:Labelled for deletion got filled again Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that, but many of the delete requests look somewhat dubious to me, e.g. the delete request for IT:Tag:power=tower. I think there is some more time needed for wiki users to notice, review and maybe revert these delete requests. --Lyx (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Power tower one was cause by deletion request at Template:Kosmos rule that got included on all pages that included this template, mostly power related. I will look at and remove instances of this template about a software as such software-specific templates should not appear anyway. It should get rid of some spurious requests. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
There are also many cases like - user page with rendering rules of some program. Adamant1 claims that this program is dead and marked such pages for deletion. I think that as long as user pages are OSM related and are not created on massive scale it is not OK to delete or edit them. What you think is preferable - deleting them or reverting Adamant1 edits? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the links in the Tag pages. Regarding user pages: I will not delete them for now to give the users themselves more time to revert the delete request on their pages or start a discussion with Adamant1. I'm not happy with these delete requests and think a discussion beforehand would have been the right thing to do; on the other hand if no users challenge these requests the pages will be deleted eventually (just not now). --Lyx (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Lyx, I reverted all the deletion tags I had added to user pages that I could find. I apologize for doing that. I was not aware it wasn't a problem at the time. As it isn't stated anywhere that it shouldn't be done. Although I still should of known better anyway. Luckily Mateusz Konieczny brought it to my attention though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning that up again. --Lyx (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

> This category is full again. Could you maybe resolve the straightforward cases (no links, no discussions, previous deletion proposals)? Then I can look at the others and possibly remove their deletion requests. I just reviewed the deletion proposals and added some pages to the category. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on free time the last couple of weeks, so I can't promise to clean it all up. But I'll give it a try. --Lyx (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Great, thank you! --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, could you please delete File:Knut IMG 8095.jpg? I know that there are links and templates pointing to it, but there is a file in Wikimedia Commons that is the exact same image with the same name [6]. As far as I understand, every time you write [[File:Knut IMG 8095.jpg]], the parser checks if this file exists in this wiki and if not, it checks Wikimedia Commons. As the filenames are the same, deleting this file would effectively work without breaking links. Please correct me if I am wrong though.
By the way, thank you for revising this category again. U30303020 (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, without checking the details, I deleted the file and checked one of the pages using the image, in this case Animals. It did not work (i.e. the image was not displayed any more), so I restored the file. --Lyx (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for trying it out. Too bad it did not work. I replaced all of links to this file with a different one. Then you can delete it as usually. U30303020 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Packstation move

Hi Lyx, could you please move Packstation to DE:Packstation (with talk page and overwrite the redirect). See last section on ‎Talk:Packstation. Thanks! --aseerel4c26 (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Done --Lyx (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Danke! :) --aseerel4c26 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to everybody who helped to fix this page! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Achja, da du jetzt eh Bescheid weißt, verschiebe bei Gelegenheit bitte noch DE:Packstation/temp in den Hintergrund. Alle Beteiligten scheinen zufrieden zu sein. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin's opinion requested

Hi Lyx,

could I get an opinion from you regarding my suggestion to revert and protect Proposed features/Public Transport. I posted it on the talk page and in the mailing list. However, nobody ever replied which could either be understood as accepting the suggestion or due to the fact that I used the wrong channels...

Thank you. U30303020 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think an admins opinion is in any way more important than others here. But I'll give you my opinion anyway :-) I don't think it is needed or even helpful to revert and protect that page. If you want to reference the version that was actually voted on, you could use the direct link to that version that is also linked in the information block on top of the page. --Lyx (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Editwar with User:Rtfm

User:Rtfm has started/particpated (depends on the point of view) in multiple edit wars on motorcycle_friendly=yes. He started a tagging proposal which had a voting with lots of sockpuppets (and lacking email to the Tagging mailing list). Although the proposal faced unanimous refusal, he create a feature page which was later moved into the Proposed_features/ "namespace". Other users (Matheusz, Polarbear and myself) added warnings on these pages about the history of the tag. He removed them several times. He continued his editwar today.

User:Mateusz Konieczny, User:Polarbear w and myself told him in the past that his behaviour is not accepted. You can find the whole story on User_talk:Rtmf. Mailing list discussion are linked from there. Could you please take actions like reverting his last edit with an admin hat on, locking page(s) and telling him that such actions are not welcome here? --Nakaner (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ops, I already reverted. Though locking this page may be a good idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I just found Tag:motorcycle friendly=customary and added {{delete proposal}}. I'll buy some fresh junk food. --Nakaner (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Verdy p

I was very surprised to see your indefinite block of User:Verdy p. Please can you explain what happened, and where this was discussed? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Where it is discussed ? -- Naveenpf (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Verdy p has been blocked after ...
______SNIP____ Moved to User talk:Verdy_p#Blocked
There was big discussion here, but I'm going to move User:Lyx's explanation and the following discussion over to User talk:Verdy_p#Blocked which is a more logical and easy place to find it (particularly the explanation of the block is important)
-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not such a good idea since it makes the discussion editable at will by verdy_p himself. -- If any further proof of verdy_p's temper was required, I point interested readers to et al. where verdy_p continues his feud with user apm_wa. --Woodpeck (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Harry, good to see some transparency and discussion on the block. Since this is a crowdsourcing platform and majority decision has the more value. The minority has to follow. Anyway moderators of wiki should have a process to block contributors. For spammer we can right away block -- Naveenpf (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki abuse for testing purposes by user Zrcook9494 adds random NASCAR content, which has nothing to do with OSM. Kindly request to block this user and delete all of their changes. Mmd (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Automatic double redirect resolution

Hi Lyx,

I occasionally check for double redirects. Now, a user contacted me on my talk page and suggested to resolve redirects automatically. There is a server setting that does that, but the MediaWiki handbook mentions that it may make page move vandalism worse. I do not think this is a problem here, because page moves are restricted to autoconfirmed users only. You are dealing with spam and vandalism in this wiki. What is your experience?

If that seems to be okay for you, I would request the tech team at GitHub to change the setting. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 08:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't see how this setting could be abused for spam, and other forms of vandalism are indeed kind of rare in this Wiki. On the other hand I have no idea how much work it is to clean up the double redirects here, as I have never tried it. So if it makes your life easier, feel free and go ahead. --Lyx (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Editwar with User:Adamant1 on deletion of abandoned tagging proposals

I am having an edit war with User:Adamant1 on the deletion of old and abandoned tagging proposals (recently Proposed_features/agricultural_access). Could you please intervene and take appropriate measures?
He placed {{delete|reason}} on a lot of tagging proposals which had been created a few years ago and marked as abandoned later. I think that they should be kept for archival reasons. He thinks that they (might?) make readers use the tags proposed there. I asked him to revert his deletions in July 2018 (see the archive of his talk page, section "Blanking" second round). I am not alone, @Mateusz Konieczny, @Tordanik, @Constantino and @Polarbear w complained about similar actions by User:Adamant1. --Nakaner (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How exactly is adding deletion proposals to pages that you never touched "Edited warring"? Also, I never said I added the deletion proposals on the pages because I think other users will use the tags. I did it because the pages have zero content and haven't been edited since the proposals where created. Which I clearly state in the deletion proposals. Further, the pages aren't from "a few years ago." A lot of them are from 2010 or earlier and haven't been edited in as long. Finally, a lot of the pages I requested be deleted originally got deleted by Lyx himself. Despite the condescension of you and other people that had a problem with it, decided to gang up on me, and threw insults. Including Verdy_P who got told multiple times by SomeoneElse to back off me because I was in the right. I don't appreciate being miss-represented or having crap made up about my edits. If any of you had issues with deletion proposals I would have fine discussing them, but you never did. At this point your behavior is borderline harassment and I'm pretty sick of it. That goes for the rest of your gang also. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is "ganging up" here, or harassing anybody. It is just more people wanting to preserve old proposals for reference, than you wanting to delete them. You could just accept that and stop probing the issue every six months. Mankind is keeping archives for thousands of years, so it does not matter if the proposal was created 2010 or 2012. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Its "ganging up" when every time one of you has an issue with something I do you ping everyone else and attack me together. There was also that time one of you requested people on the mailing list to attack me (which is totally harassment). Otherwise, there's no reason Nakaner couldn't have just dealt with problems he has with me on his own, by contacting me on my talk page. I'm a pretty reasonable person. Instead of lying about a none existent edit war. Also, I'm not "probing the issue every six months." They are completely different pages then the ones I requested be deleted six months ago (a lot of which where deleted. Despite your rhetoric and the repeated fits by everyone). Claiming I'm doing this based on a six month old grudge that I don't have is also harassment.
I happen to be cruising through proposals randomly and saw a few blank ones. So I thought id request they be deleted. Which I'm perfectly free to do. It had nothing to do with the previous episode except in your paranoid minds. Last time I checked anyone can request a page be deleted whenever they feel like. Nakaner does it, Mateusz Konieczny does it, I'm sure you do, and I know others do. So I don't need to be harassed by any of you about it every time. I don't need your permission or to clear it with you first either. Originally I had permission from SomeoneElse to request the pages be deleted that Nakaner reverted because he clearly doesn't care about the opinions of admins unless he thinks they are going to side with him. Lastly, the age thing was only important to Nakaner as a fake excuse to throw a temper tantrum about the whole thing. The main reason I requested the pages be deleted was because they are essentially blank. That was it. Get over it. If this continues I'll just report you and Nakaner to the DWG. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I and many other tried to reach out to you last year and asked you to stop adding {{delete|reason}}. After some time, you stopped. At that time, I reverted a few of your edits on the pages we are talking about, Proposed_features/agricultural_access is among them. Yesterday, you reverted my revert on this page which is the beginning of an editwar. I can use my spare time for better purposes than editwarring with another user on the wiki. That's why I am escalating this issue to a sysop because earlier attempts to reach out to you seem to be unsuccessful (otherwise you would not have reverted my revert).
This is a usual behaviour in OpenStreetMap (if someone fails to recognize my point, I will ask other users for a second opinion and escalate it to an admin if they agree me and the person in question continues their "bad" behaviour. As Polarbear wrote, nobody is harassing you. We complain about your behaviour, not your person. Please be aware that the OSM community has members beyond the border of the U.S. and that other countries have different cultures of feedback. Using the English languages does not mean that I follow US feedback culture rules. Please keep that in mind and don't put too much weight in the words of non-native speakers. --Nakaner (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sick of re-litigating this every time I make an edit you people don't like. It wasn't "many" that asked me stop. It was just you and your three buddies. Ultimately, there were more people that said it was OK and probably useful to have the pages be deleted. Including SomeoneElse, who agreed with me that they might make it harder for new users. Verdy_P also went off on me about it for the same reasons you did and got told to leave me alone three times. not to mention the pages you didn't reverted eventually got deleted. So you can go off about how I should have stopped my "bad" behavior, but you were clearly the one in the wrong. There's no reason I would never request another page be deleted just because you or Polarbearing say so. Anyone, the ones I requested to be deleted this time had nothing to do with the other ones. Its ridiculous to connect them to try and make it look I have a pattern of "bad" behavior, when its just not there. I consulted an administrator and other users, all who agreed with me, and I decided to continue based on that. Which I've already told both you and Polarbearing. Even if I hadn't though, I can request a page be deleted for whatever reason I want, whenever I want. I don't need your permission to edit things and there's still procedures for reverting someone. Which don't include "because I don't like the edit and I told them not to do it."
Harassment isn't confined to personal attacks. Its any aggressive behavior or the use of intimidation to persuade someone not to do something. Having five people boss me around on my talk page at the same time by telling me what to do, along with requesting other people on the mailing list do the same, instead of engaging in an actual discussion about the pages is both aggressive and intimating. It has nothing to do with language or culture. Its the particular tactics choosing to use. From the beginning non of you said anything specific about any specific page. It was just "stop doing it." If you had pointed out a specific thing that was worth saving on a specific page, I would have fine with that and we could have talked about it, but you didn't. Not once. And you have continued to ignore that SomeoneElse and others said it was fine. He also told Verdy_P to leave me alone three times for him making the same arguments you guys are and all the pages you didn't revert were eventually deleted. I've said it to all of you at last twice, but you still push the issue like none of that happened and I'm just a rogue editor that won't listen to reason. That's the epitome of harassment.
As far as the one page I reverted that you claim is "edit warring." The original reason you gave for reverting me was because of a conversation that never happened. Nothing in anything you or anyone else said in the supposed conversation related to that page. It was mentioned exactly zero times. Using a conversation that never happened as a reason to revert someone is not a valid reason for doing the revert. Like I said, it has to be based on more then "because I feel like it." So I feel like I'm in the clear there. If you have an issue with it though, feel free to message me on my talk page or on the pages discussion page about what exactly on that specific page is worth that page not being deleted. I'm perfectly willing to get rid of the banner if there's a reason to, but I'm not going to just because you vaguely, generally, like a year ago, said to not request "pages" be deleted or something. I don't think you or any of the others even looked over any of the pages in the first to see if there was anything that would make them worth saving. Otherwise, you would have just pointed out what those things were from the start and included them in your revert comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talkcontribs) 30 January 2019
Since non-personal statements have been requested: I think that abandoned proposals are generally worth keeping (if only to avoid people making a grand new suggestion without knowing about previous art). I can see how individual abandoned proposals that contain very little useful content might occasionally be deleted, and in these cases I would expect the person suggesting the deletion to give a clear reason. If such deletion requests were made on a case-by-case basis as someone stumbles over something useless, I would be more inclined to support the deletion than if a single person made a "gardening" effort. Generally, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel others are "ganging up" on you, and you feel compelled to write long essays that frequently contain the phrase "you people", it could be a sign that you should take a step back and maybe ask a third, independent party how they would judge the situation. --Woodpeck (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we need a general discussion about which outdated information we want to keep and how we want to make clear that this is outdated (so it does not confuse other readers). So, I started a forum thread about it. Please join: --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 22:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Woodpeck, I appreciate the non-personal statement about it. I agree with your analysis. That being said, I never made a "gardening effort." Nor would I. Even if I had though, it doesn't justify the rude, disingenuous, bossy response I repeatedly got from Nakaner and the others. Also, I only used the phrase "you people" once in my last message because I was in between classes when I wrote it and I didn't have time to list off everyone's names. I refereed to them in "proper form" in plenty of other places though. Also, I already "took a step back" and asked a third independent party originally, SomeoneElse (along with multiple wiki users). Both him and they agreed with me that the pages could be cleaned up and that I wasn't doing anything wrong. As much as I did that, Nakanar and his friends could accept that they were bullying me and are in the wrong. Btw, for someone that goes off about how "fluffy bunny language policing" is a bad thing, you sure seem to do it a lot. I didn't call them "you people" out of anything except that I was in a rush at the time. Its not like they haven't said similar things themselves anyway. I don't expect you to call them out on it or the other harassment though. So don't bother.
Tigerfell, thanks for creating the forum post. I'll be sure to participate in it. Hopefully it will lead to something more productive then the current tactics being used by Nakaner Et al. Although the whole thing was already discussed six months ago and went in my favor, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it again. Maybe Nakaner Et al. won't ignore the discussion like they did last time and will accept actually accept that some of the pages can be deleted. I'm not going to hold my breath. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate Tigerfell's attempt to start a broader discussion but hope the discussion will remain in one place.. or someone summarizes the results here.
@Adamant1: I don't think anyone is bossy here. This wiki is pretty old and if there are still proposals from 15 years ago it is because there has been a broad consensus for 15 years to keep them. I need to look at some of those old proposals if I want to figure out how some feature started or why something was done (or not done) in a certain way. If you find it confusing to find stumble over proposals maybe the wiki search needs improving or you can use more sophisticated search engines. RicoZ (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@RicoZ, I didn't necessarily say anyone was bossy here. I said they were bossy when this originally came up and that I wasn't going to just take it this time like I did back then. Further, if you had of actually bothered to read what I said or the deletion proposals themselves, you would have noticed that the age of the proposals was a minor thing and that it was mostly about the fact that they don't have any useful, or really any, content. So the whole keep the pages to "figure out how some feature started or why something was done (or not done) in a certain way" argument your making here is a mute point. While I agree the search could be improved, it ultimately has zero to do with me "confused." Other people complained about it to and we shouldn't have to use a different search engine, because you think its fine The one here should work how its suppose to. Also, plenty of other people agree that old empty pages should be cleaned and lots where. I could make the same argument you just did about the search and say if you think the content on the proposals pages are valuable, just find it somewhere else. I'm not going to because its a weak, dismissive argument. Everyone's views should be listened to and considered, instead of blown off. Even if you don't agree with them. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, sorry for being silent for a while. The amount of time I have available for OSM is unfortunately rather limited at the moment, and I would prefer to spend it in a productive way. This discussion here appears to have some aspects that are not exactly helpful, so let me remind you of a few things. You (the reader) probably care deeply about OSM, and when you see someone doing things to your beloved project that you deem wrong you might be tempted to "attack" that person that you think is harming the project. Don't do that, please. It is very likely that this other person also cares as deeply about OSM as you do, and does what she thinks is in the best interest of OSM. So, both you and the other person have the best interest of OSM in mind, you just do not agree (yet) what that best interest is. So, if someone does something you don't agree with, please tell all of us that you don't think that particular something is a good idea, and why you think so; and please ask the other person why they think it should be done, not as an accusation but to find out. Try to find common ground starting from there, and always assume that the other person is acting in good faith. The talk pages are the right place for this.

On the issue of deleting wiki pages, let me tell you how I do handle delete requests usually (other admins might do this differently). If a page has ever been touched by a single author and that author requests deletion, I'll delete it. If a page has had a deletion request for quite some time and nobody has spoken out against it being deleted, and that page is not linked from other pages, has no significant content on itself or other language versions, I'll delete it. The length of "quite some time" might be a few days for automatically generated lists to a few months or longer for personal pages. If a deletion request is disputed based on the content of that individual page, I usually wait for all parties to come to a conclusion. If a deletion request is opposed not based on the content of that particular page but based on "all deletions are evil and need to be avoided", I might ignore the opposition.

A current example would be Proposed features/Tag:natural=fungus. Basically everyone ever editing that page except the original author agrees that that page is complete utterly useless garbage. However, a deletion request was removed with the given reason "(Please, stop trying to delete nonempty proposals. Yes - abandoned proposals are inactive, it is not sufficient reason to delete them.)". Here I would have hoped that the user removing the deletion request had actually spent some time on studying that page and its history, and maybe write to the talk page why he opposes that deletion request. Maybe he could show us that this page actually has value that we had overlooked? On the practical side: I will not get around to act on deletion requests in the next couple of days, so you could use the time to try to find some agreement on how to proceed. Please continue the discussion either here or in the forum thread started by user Tigerfell (hopefully with someone writing a summary here). --Lyx (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your criteria for deletion. It is obvious that the decision to actually delete something (unless obvious spam) is not an easy one and requires plenty of care from the admin.
I see the "high cost" of deletions as the main reason to delete very very cautiously. If a page is deleted it is not just content but all history, irreparably. For this reason everyone who has ever touched the page will be tempted to very carefully double check the deletion request and - if someone does many deletion request like Adamant1 did the slightest doubt over any single of the deletion requests will cause general disapproval for good reasons.
Regarding natural=fungus it is certainly worth discussing whether it is worth to keep such proposals.. in this case it might have some worth as an obvious example of how not to do it. RicoZ (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding natural=fungus, while the original page was nonsense I have changed my opinion on mapping fungi and replaced the proposal with one that imho makes sense. In short, at least one specimen is believed to be 2400 years old and covers an area of about 8.8 sq km. RicoZ (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding natural=fungus and similar stupid proposals - main value lies in that once similar proposal appears again one may link existing consensus rather than explain for nth time the same thing. Hopefully some people who wanted to propose something similar used search, found it and discovered why it is a bad idea. I personally found existing tag via abandoned proposal, as my search found proposal page that used a different language not present in the normal Wiki page. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny There's probably zero chance of that happening with a proposal like natural=fungus. Which you say yourself is a "stupid proposal." There has to be a point where the canard of the mythological repeated proposal unicorn doesn't justify keeping some pages around "just because." In most cases it has almost zero chance of happening. If it does though, either know one is proposing those pages be deleted in the first place, the original proposal page doesn't have any content that would be useful if its brought up again, or it will be so far in the future it might be worth revisiting again anyway.
Its really nonsensical to say no pages should ever be deleted, just because you don't want to repeat yourself. For one, its pretty slim you will. Also, the Wiki doesn't revolve around your preferences. I.E. you could choose just to not participate in a discussion if it does ever come up again and maybe other people are fine with repeating themselves or revisiting things later if need be. I know I'm fine with doing both. Finally, and most importantly, having to repeat yourself is just life. I've repeated myself interacting with you and your buddies. I deal with it though. I'm sure you can to. Sometimes there's value in revisiting things.
Its not like you ultimately care about pages being deleted anyway.Its weird your making such an issue out of it in the first place since you and your buddies do it all the time yourselves. Including on this discussion page. I don't remember you chiding Nakanar that much (or at all) when he said he was going to "get the snacks" and put a deletion proposal for the motorcycle_friendly article. Or is that different because he's a member of the "in group" and I'm not? I seem to remember one of you at some point saying I shouldn't edit articles because I don't have enough edits to know what I'm doing. It seemed like some really stupid circular logic at the time, but I could see the same thing being at play here. As in, I don't have deletion proposals for you to think I should be able to request pages be deleted or some similarly dumb none sense. Otherwise, why not apply the same zero tolerance approach on yourself and the your friends that you have with me? My deletion proposals only make up a small portion of the ones currently in the queue. Why aren't off reverting those and chiding the people that did them to? The same question goes to Polarbearing and especially Nakaner. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from name calling. Remember, while other participants in this debate may have a communication style that you don't like, they DO care deeply about OSM. So, please feel free to discuss the merits and failures of the different approaches to edits and grooming of Wiki pages, but don't attack people for having a different opinion or even for expressing that opinion in a way that you don't like. Thanks! --Lyx (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Where did anyone do any name calling? I used the word "buddies." That's all I can think of on my part. I'm not sure how that's name calling. -- Adamant1
Sorry for my mistake, that should have been "name dropping", I believe. English is not my first language, so I might be wrong though. What I wanted to express: Don't talk about people, talk about issues instead. --Lyx (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I'll try not to name drop. I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess it is better to talk about issues then people. Although if specific people are the ones with the issues and not people in general I don't want to make it seem otherwise. Although I can understand why it would be better not to single people out. As an unrelated side note, being from a relatively backwoods part of California I've really became aware of just how crudely people here talk through communicating with users on here from other countries. It always surprises me how a pretty average, normal word here might be offensive to someone from somewhere else. So it wouldn't surprise me if I had have called someone a name just out of ignorance or language differences. Instead of actually intent to. Awhile back I got in a good argument with someone from Europe because I said "alright boss" and they took it as offensive. We call people here boss all the time though. "shrug." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talkcontribs) 16 February 2019

After a month of discussing in the forum, I would conclude that some people want to keep almost all proposals at any cost and there is no progress in this point. We could continue this on talk, “ат” to reach more people and possibly get a even broader discussion (we already had problems sticking to the topic), but I do not see the benefit of it. The arguments repeat, the people ask the same questions again, there are no actual negotiations but always the same views. On the other hand, bringing this up on talk could mean that other people could act as moderators of the discussion as well. I am not really decided what to do... --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 15:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lyx The policy is now ready for voting. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 11:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit deletion request

I know this is a weird request, but can you delete these useless edits that I created?:


Thanks :). — EzekielT (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how I would do that, except reverting all edits since (and they wouldn't be gone from the history anyway). --Lyx (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, I’ve decided to keep them after reading this hilarious piece in the tagging list about me: it appears my edit war with myself has humoured Polarbear w quite a bit :D! — EzekielT (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear Lyx,

We would like to invite you to voting in the case of the proposed Deletion policy for wiki pages and files. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of two and a half months. Among other things, the policy proposes a centralised discussion page for all cases which are not mentioned explicitly.

Kind regards, EzekielT

PS: I wrote this message on your talk page, because you were involved in a long dispute about deleting in 2018 and 2019 which now led to this policy draft. — EzekielT (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

warning/block request

"Piss off. I didn't ask for your opinion and I don't give two craps about it. I'm not discussing crap with you" at is not acceptable. Can you warn/block that user as an admin? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I obviously commented at but I think it deserves also admin intervention including block Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Neuer Admin?

Hallo Lyx,

ich hatte mich am 4.09. auf Talk:Wiki selbst als neuen Wiki-Administrator vorgeschlagen. Ich habe dort auch meine Pläne als Administrator vorgestellt, insbesondere das regelmäßige Durchgehen der Löschanträge. Daraufhin erhielt ich fünf positive Rückmeldungen, u. a. von zwei aktiven Administratoren. Mit dem selben Mechanismus wurde Minh Nguyen im März zum Administrator ernannt. Nachdem keine weiteren Rückmeldungen mehr kamen, habe ich alle Bürokraten angepingt und gefragt, ob sie eine Entscheidung treffen könnten. Das ist aber bis heute nicht passiert. Spricht etwas dagegen, mich zu einem Administrator zu machen oder sind alle Bürokraten mit anderen Dingen beschäftigt? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Tigerfell, sorry für die späte Reaktion. Ich bin momentan tatsächlich anderweitig ziemlich eingespannt. Normalerweise würde ich Dich hier an Grant Slater (firefishy) verweisen, da er hier der "Haupt-Zuständige" ist; ich weiss aber nicht wie es bei ihm mit Zeit aussieht. Ich schaffe es hoffentlich morgen und Sonntag auf die SOTM; ich werde schauen ob welche von den anderen Wikiadmins da sind und das Thema ansprechen. Ich melde mich dann anschliessend wieder hier. --Lyx (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, hat sich etwas ergeben? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Leider nicht, firefishy war nicht auf der SOTM. Ich schreibe ihn jetzt an und werde nachher noch auf der Wiki-Talk Seite generell was dazu schreiben, was meiner persönlichen Meinung nach Anforderung an Wiki-Admins ist oder sein sollte. --Lyx (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Ich wollte noch bestätigen, dass ich den Beitrag gelesen habe. Ich denke, dass ich mich aus Debatten heraushalten kann. Bei allen anderen Punkten fühle ich mich nicht explizit angesprochen. Die Beschreibung entspricht auch meiner Wahrnehmung von diesem Wiki, wie man auch auf Wiki:Administrators#Role of admins in the wiki nachlesen kann (die Seite darf natürlich gerne verändert werden, hatte versucht, die bisherige, ungeschriebene Handlungsweise zu verschriftlichen). --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 18:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Renovation of Main Page

The home page hasn’t had any edits in 5 years, and I could help. Can you give me administrator rights to renovate it? Thanks! Flag of Brazil.svg Dragomaniaca Ping me here 16:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For something as important as the main page (I suppose thats what you mean with "home page"?) it might be a good idea to create a new version in a sandbox that everyone can look at before editing it in place? RicoZ (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Leave it to me, RicoZ. Lyx, can I be an administrator? Please? Flag of Brazil.svg Dragomaniaca Ping me here 22:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Wenn ich mir Edits wie, oder anschaue, habe ich erhebliche Zweifel, ob der User die notwendige Voraussetzungen mitbringt, überhaupt irgendwelche Edits in diesem Wiki vorzunehmen, geschweige denn Admin. Bitte User zeitnah sperren, das OSM Wiki ist kein privater Sandkasten. Mmd (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Auch andere Benutzer haben schon damit begonnen, kritischen Änderungen an zentralen Templates zurückzurollen: Mmd (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Dragomaniaca, no, you can't be an administrator. For a significant change like renovating the main page you need to get community buy in, e.g. by building a demonstration version and discussing it with the community. And you need to be more careful and check your changes to see if they break something. I noticed the message box on Talk:Main Page was broken for some hours yesterday until you fixed it again. --Lyx (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

legal threats

Wikipedia has a policy of blocking users making legal threats (see ). Is there similar tradition on the OSM Wiki? I am asking as I noticed [7] Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no such tradition on the OSM Wiki, probably because this hasn't been a problem that we encountered so far. Unfortunately we also don't have a well-defined dispute resolution process. Admin can help to cool down edit wars by change protecting pages for a while and hope that people are able to find some kind of agreement, even it is to agree to disagree. This could mean e.g. to mention the fact that there is a disagreement and listing both points of view on a page, so readers can form their own opinion on the matter at hand. --Lyx (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If there isn't a policy about it I would still advocate for RTFM being blocked for his other actions. Especially his post calling us out for being the "wiki police" who think we "ate the wisdom from a spoon" whatever that means, but the legal threats should definitely qualify for a block in my opinion if nothing else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
To clear up "whatever that means", the user did a word-by-word translation of the common German phrase "Die Weisheit mit dem Löffel gefressen" which is used to refer to people who seriously overestimate their knowledge. --Lyx (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)