User talk:Mackerski/Tag:amenity=bikeshed

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

in no way has this value gone through a proposal. also there are exactly zero elements tagged with this according to tag watch (as of 2011-05-03). go through the proposal process first, instead of just inventing tags and values. also i don't see a reason for that value. it can perfectly be described by amenity=bicycle_parking combined with a capacity tag or with the new parking proposal that just got approved. --Flaimo 08:37, 3 May 2011 (BST)


Deletion discussion

In the "tagging" ml a discussion about this delete request is ongoing. RicoZ (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ:: Are you going to provide a link to it or just reference something know one has a way to look at or participate in if they want to? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
sorry for the inconvenience but that is how it works.. if you want to participate there you will have to read the list. RicoZ (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1:: Found it at — EzekielT (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you EzekielT. RicoZ (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ: Discussion's having to do with Wiki pages should really take place on the Wiki. It doesn't really have anything to do with tagging and a lot of the people on the Wiki don't use the tagging mailing list or even know how. Including myself. Plus, a lot of the people who use the mailing list don't necessarily deal with wiki stuff that often and might just go along with whatever you say because they aren't involved in it. So your kind of picking the wrong medium for this and one that probably has a better chance of slanting in your direction then if you did it here. Its clear from what discussion there was that none of the people who responded knew anything about the wider issue or cared to look into it. Which is exactly what I would expect and proves my point.

If nothing else, it least it shows the measures your willing to try in order to get people on your side when other things don't go your way though. Where's all this outrage at pages being deleted you keep spouting off about? I'm still not seeing it. There's angry throngs of editors on Tigerfall's proposals page or anywhere else. At this rate you'll be complaining on the OpenStreetMap Reddit page and then the iD Editors Slack channel when that falls through. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not start this ml discussion and YOU are wrongly accusing me here of many things. I was the one who informed you about the mailing list discussion. RicoZ (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1:: as much as you may not want to view the tagging list, I’ve learned that you probably should because if you don’t there is a possibility of others talking behind your back without you knowing, like how RicoZ did about you at
Apart of this special case the problem is user Adamant1 marked a large number
of pages with {{delete}} without any further discussion, in addition his previous record isn't something that gives me the warm feeling of unlimited trust. — RicoZ, February 5, 2019.

It’s fine that RicoZ feels that way about you, but saying that and discussing you with other people without you knowing isn’t how a healthy community should work. This just isn’t right. And it could go both ways, like if Adamant1 were to talk about Nakaner behind his back. That wouldn’t be fair either. So I agree that discussions about the OSM Wiki should only be held on the wiki. Communication on several different channels (forum, diary entries, and the tagging list) about something happening just on the wiki makes things more difficult, confusing, and encourages people to talk behind others’ backs. — EzekielT (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ:: My apology. I thought you had started mailing list discussion because your the only one involved in this that brought it up as a possible alternative communication channel. I should have done proper research though. so that was my bad. Even so, I think most of what I said is grounded in truth, as is evidenced by the quote EzekielT provided. Which is obviously completely false and was said with intent of getting users of the mailing list on your side. Since its clearly not a balanced summary of my behavior that people can use to form their own opinions from. I think its a good example of why its better to keep communication on the channel where the thing originated from. Otherwise, Like EzekielT says its to hard to keep track of things and defend yourself if says something like you did. I had actually read through the whole discussion and didn't even see that part.
EzekielT, I appreciate you bringing things like that to my attention. That type of thing is exactly the kind of one sided, bias, personal stuff I've been talking about. While its OK other attack me personally like he did there and how the moderator of the forum did. While I'm not allowed to mention specific people in anything and I get chided as "hard to deal with" for even the most mundane language. Notice also that its always about the "bad feelings" they might have toward me personally and never about whether the idea I am suggesting is actually a good one or not. Its been like that since the beginning two years ago. RicoZ's behavior is just one more ideological cog in the wheel of endless obfuscation that goes on here. I agree that RicoZ can feel however he want's, behind my back isn't right. I'm perfectly fine saying like that to his face. Although I wouldn't because like I said he's not my enemy and I respect his opinions. Even if we disagree. He clearly doesn't feel the same way about me though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Btw, also notice that in RicoZ's message on the mailing list he doesn't bother to mention the forum discussion, which had already been going on for 6 days, or request people comment on the proposal there. You'd think if he really cared about this subject and thought other people agree with him, I wonder why not. It would have been a good strategy to flood the forum with throngs of opposition he is claiming exists out there. By making it personal and only about my deletion proposals though, it was a total missed opportunity to prove it. Let alone it was a missed opportunity for more people to help refine the guidelines. Sad. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1:: Well RicoZ has made a comment on the forum saying “I notice that this thread did not even attract the attention of most of the original participants of the "delete war". — EzekielT (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@EzekielT:: Thanks for the update. I actually noticed that after I had written my message here or I would have written it differently. I give him credit for it though. I've also given him credit on the forum for participating in it, despite me being hard to deal with and him opposing things. It probably got buried in my ranting though ;)
Btw, I also noticed they didn't really give opinions in the mailing list discussion either. Except for Polarbearing making the joke about you. At least not that I saw. I thought Nakaner (?) would have chimed in somewhere by now. Since he instigated things by contacting an admin and seemed pretty admit about it initially. He hasn't even responded on Lyx's page though. Unless I missed it. Oh well (for the sake of civility I won't make a "fake outrage" comment this time). --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1:: maybe Nakaner thinks he cares about it more than he really does... Or maybe he's given up entirely (I doubt that though).
And if the (?) means you're asking if you spelled "Nakaner" correctly, then yes, you did ;). — EzekielT (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@EzekielT:: Those are all possibilities. Obviously fake outrage is just one of many reasons he might not be responding. I highly doubt also that its because he has given up though or that the silence means he won't come back with a vengeance later when the time is right (or wrong). Just between us, I'm perfectly fine with him providing constructive feedback on things if he wants. I'd prefer that over the current silence. Even if he doesn't agree with me. Since he's the one that instigated this on Lyx's talk page. Personally, I'd just like to see this resolved soon one way or another. Its frustrating how long things take on here sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I knew id spell someones name correctly eventually ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t noticed you mispelling anyone’s name recently, so I guess you’ve got them all in the bag ;). About Nakaner (?), he still hasn’t taken part of the discussion since January 30 (nearly 40 days ago)... Admittedly he hasn’t really been super active since then, but I think he could’ve followed more (especially considering Nakaner (?) was the initiator of the conversation)... Of course, we don’t know what he’s going through in the outside life. So I won’t make assumptions... There is the possibility that he’s not interested though, and he only replied once... In fact, pretty much all of the original people who reverted you aren’t participating much in the conversation, so I’m considering pinging all of the 9 anti-deleters (System-users-3.svgMateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), System-users-3.svgNakaner (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) (?), System-users-3.svgRicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), System-users-3.svgPolarbear w (Polarbear on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), User icon 2.svgDieterdreist (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), User icon 2.svgTordanik (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), System-users-3.svgConstantino (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), System-users-3.svgSmz (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), and System-users-3.svgRafmar (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.)) at User talk:Tigerfell/Crafting#Moving proposals to userspace / deletion war discussion, what do you think? Would it slant the discussion over to one side? Should I ping the admins into the conversation as well? We need to snap them out of the “fake outrage™” mode (striked out for *adamant* (and serious) copyright infringement of Adamant1 Industries, Limited), we need more opinions ;). — EzekielT (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. No bags full of names for me. I've just gotten better at using copy and paste ;) Yeah, its likely Nakaner just has stuff going on. Now it's been a while I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't really matter why there's no participation in the discussion though. The important thing is that isn't. Concerning this particular page, I'm willing to let it go "for now" and just keep it. Although I'm 100% going to revisit it again at some point. It does show the general lack of actual participation though and I my guess is that most deletion proposals will end going the same way. Where the person doing the deletion proposal sits around forever waiting for comments that never materialize. Which is fine I guess. Its better then “fake outrage™” at least.
As far pinging people on proposal page, I had a few ideas there. 1. we wait until its refined enough, then create a draft 2.0 page specifically asking for feed, since the current one has gotten pretty long and I think what we have decided can summarized for people so they don't have to read through everything before commenting. 2. Ping people for feedback now and have a bunch of conversations spread out over a bunch of topics on one page we have to keep track of 3. Say screw it because they have had plenty of time to give feedback and haven't. Plus, they can always slam the proposal when it gets discussed on the mailing list if they feel like it. I'm fine with either option, as long as its not bending over backwards to much to accommodate people and doesn't cause the whole thing to grind to a halt, while we wait for comments that aren't going to materialize. More then likely they will just stall until it goes to the mailing list and comment there instead because they know its more friendly to their view points. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
My main concern is that they (except RicoZ) may not participate further until we’ve finished the guidelines, and then when we’ve come up with the finished product and started the cleanup they could all of a sudden express disagreement with what we did and revert all of our changes... BTW, you don’t need to strike out the “fake outrage™”, since you’re the *adamant* CEO® of Adamant1 Industries, Limited©, you own the copyright© ;)! — EzekielT (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
there's a good chance that can happen. I guess we will see. You never know. "you don’t need to strike out the “fake outrage™”. Oh yeah, duh. I guess I won't sue myself for a copyright violation. Btw, did you move this? Tisk, tisk. (or am I just now noticing it?. Jeez). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)