User talk:Lyx

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

False Spam accusations of User:LevitatePalantir


This is an alt of LevitatePalantir appealing my block. You accused me of spamming when I was simply mapping out institutional ownership. Please see my user page for more info. I'm kindly requesting a separate admin for impartiality. LevitatePalantir (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! I just looked up what your contributions had been at the time of the block. Within 3 minutes you had created 3 pages (all with a comment of "Slumlord watch"), first Tag:owner=InvitationHomes reading "Mapping out institutional ownership of homes. Starting with XXXXXXXXXX's Invitation Homes." (part of the company name X-ed out by me here) followed by a list of company names; second Tag:owner=invitationhomes (different capitalization) reading "See [[InvitationHomes]]" and third a page Invitationhomes with the identical text as your first page. These pages then existed unchanged for about 1 hour and 30 minutes, before I removed them and blocked you. I give you there are no actual external links on the pages you created, but it looked to me a lot like SEO spam trying to promote the mentioned companies. I disagree with your claim that it "isn't possible to interpret [your] edits as spam", but I have probably been wrong in interpreting it that way. I apologize for this misinterpretation and have unblocked your user. --Lyx (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will work on my wiki mapping skills to make my intent more clear, possibly an op or project page. Appreciate the unban and it looks like my edit's are in place. LevitatePalantir (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2021 (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 [1] 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)

Module pages, a manual deletion request

Cookieeater1 created account and immediately started copying various templates from enwiki (without crediting authors and without any need for doing that) and got blocked.

But in module namespace delete template is not working so I ask you manually to delete module pages (on the bottom of the following link)

For example Module:Section link. In general all pages created by this user should be deleted Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Lyx (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


Should I consider Talk:Wiki#Requesting_ban_for_RTFM to be rejected? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it isn't since he's still doing the same things and recently compared me to a religious bigot for using the clothes key. Which is really beyond the fray. If a permanent ban is not currently doable for some reason he should at least be temporary blocked to cool down and think about why comparing other users to religious bigots etc isn't a good tactic. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you respond? At least in my case I prefer to get "I disagree with you, RTFM behavior is perfectly fine" rather than to get ignored. Also, it would be helpful to get some feedback why. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't really disagree with you, his behaviour is definitely NOT perfectly fine. However, I'm not yet convinced it is "bad enough" to justify a ban. But, he obviously has very unique views of OSM tagging, creating and documenting tags that, if widely adopted, will make parts of OSM completely unusable, and he appears to not accept that he may have made a mistake here. This might result in a ban, but I would need some feedback before enacting it. Unfortunately, I have a very limited time budget for OSM at the moment due to high work load in my day job, so things are progressing slowly. --Lyx (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Little help

Hi, are you the creator of OpenStreetMap? I need a little help YellowFrogger (talk)---

Hi, I am not the creator of OpenStreetMap, just one of the many people helping to improve it. After reading what you wrote on other pages already, I guess you need some help finding out how OpenStreetMap works and what you can do here? A good starting point would be the Beginners Guide, it is available in Portuguese here.
tradução automática: Olá, eu não sou o criador do OpenStreetMap, apenas uma das muitas pessoas que ajudam a melhorá-lo. Depois de ler o que já escreveu noutras páginas, acho que precisa de ajuda para descobrir como funciona o OpenStreetMap e o que pode fazer aqui? Um bom ponto de partida seria o Guia para Principiantes. --Lyx (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, RTFM again

RTFM again is insulting and adding misleading descriptions in attempt to promote their tags. See with "often offered by a shop=street_vendor (without a permanent building)." (despite that shop=street_vendor is barely used and shops without permanent building are not necessarily tagged this way).

In addition edit comment is "another formulation for seasonal shops for the inexperienced basement dwellers" such insults have no effect whatsoever on me, but it scares away people who would help in editing wiki but are not interested in participating in place where this kind of language is accepted Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added a comment to his Talk page in the faint hope that he might take it to heart. Let's see how he reacts. --Lyx (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for renaming! —Fffv7787 talk 17:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox blanking

Can you maybe look at ? Gileri started reverting without even giving reason (" Undo revision 2156873 by Please stop wasting my and your time"). But I already reverted on that page and worry that further reverts would be just be a clear case of edit warring Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have seen the edits and was just going to ask what this is all about. I'll comment on that talk page. --Lyx (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

move request

Hi Lyx,
could you undo this and then this change? I.e. to move the category back over redirect - only admins can do it and I would like to keep the history. A new user has messed up with the categories I'm currently working on. Thank you in advance. maro21 23:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to email that user first, as there has been no comment on your talk page entry yet. Hope it's just a communication problem, and that shouldn't hopefully result in an edit war. I hope waiting for a day is not that big of a problem. --Lyx (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
So could you revert it? :) If such change is impossible, just delete Category:OSM Carto icons, so I could move back the category myself. Thank you in advance. maro21 20:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Done, sorry I lost track of this issue and thanks for the reminder. I have merged a change that Reneman made in the meantime to that category. --Lyx (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Locking of shop=motorcycle article

It would have been a lot better if you had of locked the article in the state it was before RTFM deleted a good portion of it and it had all the options that people disagree about. Making it so that people have to look at the history for to find the non-censored version, that leaves out widely used tags, really isn't helpful and will just encourage RTFM to do more edit warring. More so because he's really the only one with the disagreement. Everything except him thinks that there isn't a single, best tagging option. Nor is there "old" and "new" ways of tagging. Rental, parts, and the other tags he claims are the "old method" are currently being used. Also, he's the only one who thinks a template should be used in the "Tags to use in combination" section. So I'd really appreciate it if you restored the article to the edit before his and then lock it in that state. T --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Upload pics

Hi, I would like to create an explanatory page illustrated with pictures for the Hungarian surface page. But I don't have the right to upload pictures. Can this be changed? This message is currently in the upload location: "You do not have permission to upload this file." Thank, Szem

I just saw your request and added you to the confirmed user group. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for processing deletions, I was worried that license review of images will be pointless as everything will be just tagged as deletion and waiting but I see that I worried needlessly :)

So thanks for processing file tagged for deletion :) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Problems editing Colombia/Guide_for_mapping_phone_numbers

The DWG have a report that omeone can't edit on the wiki. I've just tried and get:

Error: Warning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful. Unconstructive actions will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked. If you believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: phone spam 1

Would it be possible to review to see which bit of that has triggered and whether it would be possible to "dial back" (pardon the pun) that spam filter? Unfortunately we don't have any information about what edit the user wanted to make. SomeoneElse (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The filter is apparently triggered now by any edit on the page, e.g. when I tried to correct a typo in the wording. The original complainant seems to have the same problem now. --Polarbear w (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The filter 5 did some strange things here that I do not understand at the moment. I have deactivated that specific filter for now; hopefully we won't need it again any time soon. --Lyx (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Renaming my account

Hi Lyx, I'd wish to rename my account to the following: Elefant aus Wuppertal like in my osm profile. Maybe you could do that for me? Thank you very much. --Lukas458 (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Erledigt. --Lyx (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--Lukas458 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)