User talk:SomeoneElse

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I have responded to your question on my talk page. PeterIto (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have responded again to your comment. PeterIto (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OWL status

Re your edit: In case this is not your trigger, see User_talk:Matt#OWL_status for information. I will try to act on it. Cheers --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it (from talk on #osm-dev at the time) there were issues with the speed of the processing as well as the machine power issues, and since then other approaches have come along that essentially do the same job or better (albeit not on the main site). Someone asked the DWG what they can do about local area monitoring, which is how I noticed the wiki still pointed people at OWL. --SomeoneElse (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I will fix-up the OWL page and references to it. Local area monitoring... hard when it comes to the web interface. For me RSS feeds (whodidit and filtered do a good job (in German). Yes, totally right to remove OWL. If its status would have been clearer, it should be gone much earlier. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for the tips at User:SomeoneElse/new_mapper_messages, I need to incorporate the "wait a bit and give them time" part. -- SwiftFast (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: GeoMapTool / geoBingAn

Thank you. In the course of creating the original version, I did alert the community to the fact that a single account was being abused by this editor (which was fixed), but I was unaware that multiple additional issues later arose regarding this editor. Frankly I'm surprised it had much usage at all, given its frustrating interface design.

With pages like iOS, I attempted to make existing content more usable by removing abandoned and malfunctioning software and extraneous details. After doing that, the page started to look very slim, so I also went through the iTunes App Store, Google Play Store, etc. looking for OSM-based software to document on this wiki. To me, the purpose of these software pages is to document the OSM ecosystem as completely as possible. It didn't occur to me that it would be viewed as an endorsement, but I can see how it looks that way.

I'm totally in agreement about removing geoMapTool from the iOS listing and slapping a more prominent warning on geoMapTool. Sorry for the inconvenience this page caused your team. Hopefully there aren't any other major drivers of traffic to that application.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that - and especially thanks for making sections such as "iOS editing software" sane to navigate in the first place (they certainly weren't previously!) --SomeoneElse (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing or deleting other users comments

Hello. I was wondering if there is a rule about editing or deleting other users comments on talk and article discussions pages. I can't find anything in the guidelines about it, but I would assume its rather uncouth, especially in public discussions. I also can't find anything about when a reversion is appropriate or not. Maybe you can enlighten me on what the guidelines are there too.

If there are rules about not deleting or editing other peoples comments, can you let Verdy_P know about them and what the the proper circumstances for reversions are? Because he has been reverting me arbitrarily without citing a valid reason and then attempting to censor any discussion of the reversions by disparaging me on the talk pages of the articles, by doing things like lambasting me for having a college degree, saying that I shouldn't be editing the wiki in the first place, and then deleting my responses even if they are attempts to steer the conversation back on topic. Really, if you can block him from being able to revert or contact me anymore in the first place because of his behavior id really appreciate it. He's pretty confrontational and unwilling to compromise in general, not just with me. So if I don't have to deal with him at all anymore, in any form, that would be great. Thank you.

Which page(s) are we talking about here? I can see lots of discussion on and "issues with the tabs" on - is it that one? Also one other thing - it's helpful if you "sign" your contributions on talk pages so that people can later see who said what. If you're editing via "edit source" just click the second icon from the right above. --SomeoneElse (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those are the pages where he deleted my comments. He was also initially rude to me on my talk page. Although he wasn't deleting my comments at that point. It was kind of where this all started in case it matters. Then it went to the articles discussion page and then to his talk page. As far as the page he reverted multiple times that we are having issues with, I'm pretty sure it is the Recording GPS Tracks article. Thanks for letting me know about the signature shortcut. I was not aware of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you link to the revision history of the change where your comments were deleted (e.g. "and then deleting my responses even if they are attempts to steer the conversation back on topic")? You've both made a large number of very long edits to talk pages, which makes guessing what might be the problem difficult. --SomeoneElse (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it got pretty convoluted. I think part of the reason he started doing the snipping was because he knew it would be to hard to dig through the whole thing after that. Since it started after I told him I contact a moderator. I'm not really sure how to recover it from the history, but I'll my best. Here's a link a few links from his talk page and the discussion history where it looks like he removed things. Although it is hard to tell. So I apologize in advance if the links are not correct. Nothing to do with you or anything, but it kind of sucks that I'm the one that has to dig through the messages he cut instead of him. Since he was the one that did it and knows the system way better than I do. He just did it again for my last message also.,,,,,

I think that is correct. I might of left a few out. Its really hard to tell. If I'm linking to the wrong thing or something, let me know and I'll do some more digging through. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two issues here - one is that the "Recording_GPS_tracks" page is crap (and I agree with you, it is), and the other is that Verdy_p isn't able to coexist peacefully with other editors in the wiki. On the first of this, on the page I've suggested another way forward - create a new set of pages somewhere else. If it's better and more relevant than what's in the wiki, people will use it instead of the wiki. That's exactly what happened with . On the other point, and talking in the abstract rather than any particular person, there have been people within the OSM project who have simply lacked the skills to collaborate with other people. It's not their "fault"; that's just how they are. From an admin/project perspective the question is "is that enough of a problem (e.g. stopping other people from contributing)" to justify a ban. There have been high-profile examples in the past where someone has been banned from the wiki after failing this test, even though they really did think that they were doing the "best thing" for the project, but they're rare. OSM's ban policy for data (note - doesn't really cover the wiki) is at and sets a deliberately high bar. There's a famous Google I/O talk on this - see and the links from there. --SomeoneElse (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that impression about him. I think your suggestion on the page is a good compromise. If nothing else, at least this whole thing might make him less inclined to bother me next time. I can understand why the standards for banning someone on here are so high. Otherwise, it could be easily miss used. I like that there has to be a vote in the DWG instead of leaving it up to a single mod. That's a good way to do it. Can you give me any advice on how to handle things better if he starts in again on another article or reverts me in the future? Also, I'll work on shortening the length of my messages from now on. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Continued harassment by Verdy_P

Hi. Sorry to bother you with this kind of thing again, but I've continued to get harassed by Verdy_P since the last indecent and I'm hoping you can talk to him again. A few days ago he reverted a bunch of edits I did that were tiny things like adding extra words to articles or fixing grammar issues, and gave nonsense reasons for it. Then I changed a bunch of links from Kosmos to Maperitive which someone requested be done on the WikiProject Cleanup page and he reverted a bunch of those changes because he said they where abusive vandalism that only served to hurt people and erase history. Whatever that means. After that I tried to ask him repeatedly what a valid edit or a good compromise would be on his talk, but he just deleted most of my comments and went on an insulate laden tirade about maintaining history that was just more nonsense.

He's currently edit warring me on the RU:Yahoo! Aerial Imagery page because I want to update the wording and change the banner to reflect the current status of Yahoo imagery usage, in the same way the English page is already. He wont even let me do that though and keeps going off in the revert comments about how the banner is fine and my edits are abusive vandalism. I've asked him repeatedly to leave me alone and let another editor revert me if there is a need to but he refuses. I don't know if he's mad about the mobile tabs thing still or what, but I shouldn't have to deal with him and his bad attitude endlessly just to make menial edits like adding the word "the." It seems like he's just doing it because has a grudge against me or something. If you could talk to him again id appreciate it. Thanks.

(previous unsigned comment by Adamant1, 00:37, 15 June 2018‎)

Re "Then I changed a bunch of links from Kosmos to Maperitive" can you link to the actual changes? Without knowing the full context it's difficult to comment.
Re the edits to!_Aerial_Imagery&action=history it doesn't look like you're "reflect the current status of Yahoo imagery usage, in the same way the English page is already". Currently the English page says things like "WE DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE ANY CURRENT YAHOO IMAGERY!" (mostly unchanged in 2 years). The!_Aerial_Imagery&action=history page seems to alternate between an older version of the English page (in English) and an empty page with a big red box. Neither of these match the current English page. I can see the point in having a page that says "we used to be able to use Yahoo imagery, but we now can't" (which the English version of the page says), but neither version of the Russian page says that so I'd suggest that they're _both_ wrong. Also the edit war to and fro reflects badly on both participants :)
By the way, if it's easier to email than editing a wiki talk page then you can just send an email to instead. --SomeoneElse (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"can you link to the actual changes?" Its been a week and a bunch of changes later on many different articles. I have better things to do than sift through a bunch of changes to prove a point about harassment on his part that should be obvious from looking at his talk page and other actions.

"Neither of these match the current English page." The reason it is a red page currently is because he wouldn't let me change it to reflect the English page in the first place, as evidence by his summary comments like "The existing yellow banner is fine!", "The top banner is sufficient!" "keep the existing top banner which is accurate" etc etc. I shouldn't have to justify wanting to do those types of edits or other simple ones in the first place. Let alone be told I can't multiple times or jump through a bunch of hoops to do them. Could I have handled the situation better and not edit warred, totally. I was more concerned with being able to edit things without being harassed at the time then my reputation though.
In general though, it would be good to know what constitutes an edit war. For instance if he reverts edits I did on 16 pages, all with a baseless reason, and then I revert a few back to how I had it because I don't think his reason if valid, does that count as edit warring? Or if he reverts a single page and gives the reason of the page being "fine" without my edit and I revert him again because I don't feel like engaging him in an endless debate about what "fine" has to do with anything, is that edit warring? If the definition of edit warring is just reverting a revert, it seems like it would give people like him carte blanche to arbitrarily revert everything he doesn't like without any repercussions. I don't think a revert should be valid if the reason is crap, like all his reasons are and he shouldn't be able to revert people "just because," but that's how he does it, on a mass scale, and its not realistic to have a discussion every time or contact a mod every time either. So I don't know. Its just a frustrating situation and I wish the rules for things like that were laid out better. I'll email the DWG in the future though. Thanks for resolving it. Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
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. In the case of the RU Yahoo imagery page the previous version clearly _wasn't_ fine, it was very out of date (and someone had commented on the talk page 2 years ago in Russian saying "shouldn't we delete this?").
I know it's a pain to have to seek arbitration on every conflict (and with some OSMers, every interaction seems to lead to conflict), but do try to think about what the likely result of any interaction will be. Someone with more time than appears sensible to spend on the OSM wiki will likely just revert it back and write a long screed on the talk page that adds no value. Like the saying goes - "never wrestle with a pig - you'll only get muddy and the pig enjoys it". Admins (both wiki admins and the DWG and site admins for OSM data) can only act if they know there's a problem, and in order to act they need specific examples to raise with the problem editor. --SomeoneElse (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I'll do that next time. I know its the job of the admins to deal with those types of things, but I just feel like its bothering them because we should be able to work things out ourselves. Especially on something like the Yahoo page where it is so clearly outdated and there was the comment in the talk section. I guess that's not realistic though because of people like Verdy_P out there. It's also hard to keep track of specific examples when its multiple pages over multiple days. I should of just reported it in the first place though instead of letting it get to that point. I clearly made mistakes and could of handled things better. I'll take your quote to heart next time and not waste my time wrestling with pigs. They really do enjoy it and it just leads nowhere. Thanks for the advice. Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Links to Google maps


I saw that you recently deleted a text reference to Google maps. Is linking to this service problematic in general? There seem to be many pages linking to this URL: --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 23:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends on context. From memory the text I removed said "use Google Maps to do X". To pick 2 random examples, other pages such as are discussing whether it's OK to use Google Maps for imagery, and is saying "all the big Internet maps get [the start of a road] wrong". SomeoneElse (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear SomeoneElse,

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) 18:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll abstain from voting I think - I'm not close enough to the problem that you're trying to solve (what might be termed "documentary" wiki pages) to comment. It's good that people are thinking about it, but I do share some of the people who have opposed it's concerns - that it's a bit complicated. SomeoneElse (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)