User talk:Raubraupe

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Hallo Raubraupe, danke für den tatkräftigen Einsatz beim Wiki-Aufräumen! :) Ich würde allerdings gerne kurz mit dir den Umgang mit Weiterleitungen besprechen: Aus meiner Sicht sind diese nicht in erster Linie für Links innerhalb des Wikis gedacht, sondern für vom Benutzer von Hand eingegebene Suchanfragen und in Einzelfällen ggf. auch für externe Links auf das Wiki. Daher finde ich, dass sinnvolle Weiterleitungen nicht allein deswegen gelöscht werden sollten, weil sie "verwaist" sind. Die Weiterleitung .osm.pbf hatte ich z.B. gezielt angelegt, damit der Benutzer bei dieser Eingabe direkt auf der richtigen Seite landet statt in einer Liste von Suchergebnissen. Wie siehst du das? --Tordanik 15:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Tordanik, Ich habe selbstverständlich nichts dagegen, wenn sinnvolle Weiterleitung behalten werden. Ich bin in dem .osm.pbf davon ausgegangen, dass es sich um einen toten Link handelt, der entstanden ist, weil sich jemand mal auf seiner Seite verschreiben hat. Selbstverständlich mache ich die Löschmarkierung rückgängig. Ich würde aber trotzdem gerne die Strategie fahren, erst mal Links und Seite, die seit Jahren nicht mehr angefasst wurden, einfach als zu lösen zu markieren. Ich schreibe mir kein Skript, das einfach alles löscht was alt ist, sondern mache das in Handarbeit, um sicher zu sein, dass keine sinnvollen Informationen verloren gehen. Bis die Seiten tatsächlich gelöscht sind, dauert es in der Regel immer mehrere Monate und sie können auch immer wiederhergestellt werden. Aber wenn sich keiner beschwert, sind die Seiten tatsächlich überflüssig und das Wiki wird evtl. etwas schlanker und aufgeräumter. LG Raubraupe (27.03.2018 17:40 UTC+2)


Please, do not edit comments made by others, like in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry I upset you, but I just fixed a link. The page "AND data" redirects to the page "AND Data" since 2008. I really changed no content on that page. (Raubraupe 10. April 2018 13:11)

Image of the week

Hi, I think it is kind of pointless to mark the "Image of the week" description texts for delete "because they have not been edited for a long time". If you want to purge the wiki of the history of image of the week, please start a discussion on the talk page of the Main page. --Lyx (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, You are correct. That wasn't a good idea. I am sorry. But maybe there should be any kind of documentation, because all these pages are not linked and a lot of links don't work. Raubraupe, 09:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

At least some of these templates actually seem redundant (ignoring their edit history, at least). For example, the text from DE:Iotw_text/2009-2 has been merged into Template:Iotw_text/2009-2 by these 2013 edits. Does anyone know if this migration was done for all IotW description texts? --Tordanik 16:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting page deletions

Hi. I couldn't help notice that you have gotten some pages that you marked for deletion reverted by Verdy_P. While I don't know the specifics of those particular pages or if they are worth deleting, I have ran into similar problems with Verdy_P in the past and he has done the same thing to me as recently as a few days ago. If I were you I wouldn't attempt to reason with him, because he his unwilling to see anyone else's position or compromise. Especially when it comes to these types of matters. I wouldn't attempt to revert him either because he will just revert war you. Instead, a much better way to deal with it if you are sure your in the right is to contact the Data Working Group. Since he is already on thin ice and has been warned about this type of thing before multiple times by a moderator, which he has ignored. The email address to the DWG is in the last comments of talk page on SomeoneElse's profile. It also includes a discussion of this issue. So does the bottom of Verdy_P's talk page where SomeoneElse, who is a moderator tells him "There's a lot of old cruft in the wiki that really should be deleted because it is outdated - having things "tagged as historic" is no help to new mappers." Which happened only a few days ago and it appears he has ignored by the fact that he never responded to SomeoneElse and has reverted you for the same reason he was told not to right after that. I just thought id give you a heads up. So you can spare yourself the month and a half of Verdy_P that I suffered through. I also think its worth reporting him until he either gets the message, since he clearly hasn't, or he has to take an involuntary vacation instead. Hopefully he just gets the message. Also this is an important gem from SomeoneElse that can be used against Verdy_P if need be and can probably apply to your situation "If he reverts a page because the previous version was "fine" and you think it wasn't, I'd suggest escalating that to a wiki admin." Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)