User talk:Xxzme

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RU:Как обозначить

Xxzme, привет! Заметил, что со страницы «Как обозначать» пропало довольно много пунктов. Я уверен, что у этих изменений есть логика, но она, к сожалению, не видна из описания к правкам.

Сейчас мне написал один участник и спросил, почему якорь «#культовые сооружения» не работает. Оказалось, дело в удалении блока про церкви, который вполне имеет право быть на этой странице. «Как обозначать» часто смотрят новички, чтобы найти нужный им тег. Исходя из этой функции, список, на мой взгляд, ухудшился. Я ваши недавние правки временно откатил, давайте вместе подумаем, как лучше сделать. Kachkaev (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Нашёл тему в обсуждении самой страницы, давайте продолжим дискуссию там. Kachkaev (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Хватит пороть нашу вики

Зайдите на — там обсуждают ваши бессмысленные правки. --Zverik (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Вики не "ваша". На странице обсуждения RU talk:Как обозначить не высказано ни одного аргумента за оставление этой страницы. Как минимум два пользователя согласны что её нужно со времеем удалить. Вне вики никакого общения не будет - будет обращение к DWG. Xxzme (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Вы порисуйте карту хотя бы пару недель, отметьте все магазины и офисы в радиусе километра, а потом решите, нужна ли страница «как обозначить». И прошу, обратитесь в DWG, мне будет очень интересна формулировка. --Zverik (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ты хули мне говоришь что делать уебок? Ты хоть одну страницу тегов в вики перевёл? Пиздобол убогий??? Ты даже пользователя в OSM найти не можешь??? Что еще блдяь? Точки мои считать будешь? Слепи какую-нибудь хуйню?
Ловите наркомана! --Hind (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ты хуйло и пизодобол без единой правки на страницах тегов. С какого хуя вики стала "твоей"? Xxzme (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
1) Спасибо за экспрессию, она нам поможет. 2) Дочитайте вашу ссылку до 2011 года. 3) Вики общая, в том числе и моя. --Zverik (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Relation:site if feature cannot be expressed as site

Hi, are you sure that you wanted to write "Relation:site if feature cannot be expressed as site" in,_one_OSM_element&diff=1072167&oldid=847355&rcid=&curid=29888 ? Did you mean "multipolygon" in the second occurrence? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, this is just typo. Xxzme (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for correcting. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

{{Languages}} now works with category pages too

Fortunately I was able to solve this issue. See details at Template_talk:Languages#This template doesn't work in category namespace? --Jgpacker (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I'm not familiar enough with mw syntax to solve this issue by myself. Xxzme (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating empty tag pages with redirects

Hi, I'm against creating tag pages for the sake of the redirect. See more details in --Jgpacker (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If there no redirect, ID editor will not show any link to wiki page. I'd rather keep redirect pages at wiki than leave ID users without any help.
Redirects were used this way before. See all pages that redirect to access=* page. Is there any reason we should change it after 4 or 5 years? It just works. Do not change it. JOSM help rely on that. ID help rely on that. Xxzme (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Untrue. If there is no tag page, then iD shows the link and description of the key. I believe JOSM does the same(though I didn't test in JOSM). By the way, creating redirects in pages for keys does not help iD, only JOSM, but I'm not against creating redirect pages for keys, only tags. I listed some reasons to change this behavior in the link I gave you. Preferably answer there. --Jgpacker (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Not only JOSM, but also main site and possibly other software. Keys will be highlighted as hyperlinks if there at least redirect page for this tag. Xxzme (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm against creating empty redirect pages for Tags, not Keys. --Jgpacker (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well there no need for tag redirects, but some users used tag redirects to discourage use of unpopular value in favour of other tag. This was before RFC and proposal process was defined, keep this in mind. Xxzme (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that's one possible exception we could add for this rule I'm proposing (of banning tag redirect pages, in order to allow users to differentiate pages with content from pages without content). Though I think that it's better to discourage the use of a tag by explaining why instead of a redirect. Could you add this in the forum thread? --Jgpacker (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well not everybody have time or interest in that. All we have now is unxplained tag redirects across wiki. No, I don't really have interest in redirects or cleaning them. However, I'm fine if you will cite my words. Also, you can search for "only redirect" (without any content) for specific page quite easily, see link in my 1st reply. I don't really think it is good idea to clean them manually (there should be wikibot for this job) and I also doubt that this will save server resources anyhow. Xxzme (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I also think that removing them manually isn't practical. The benefit isn't to save server resources. The benefit is simply so people can tell whether a tag has a documentation page just by seeing whether it's link is blue or red. Nowadays, all of them are blue, which means the users can't tell apart tags with actual pages from tags that have redirects (which, in most cases, will take you to the same page you are already in), and that's the problem. --Jgpacker (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding "feature"

Hi, please be very cautious to preserve the meaning of the introductions sections, especially because in many cases the pages/tagging described there have problems not immediately visible. [1], [2]RicoZ (talk)

I'm sorry, had no intention to do that. Just too many edits in row to notice everything. Xxzme (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

addr:place is a replacement from addr:street?

Hi, you have edited the template {{Map Features:addr}} and added to addr:place desciption that it is "Replacement for addr:street.". I do not aggree with this. I can image cases where both addr:street and addr:place would be used at the same time. For example we can have addr:street and in addr:place would be name of a part of the city. Where from does this information came from? Chrabros (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed_features/addr:place. You only need to use tags "addr:place" + "addr:housenumber". "addr:street" is not requied when you use "addr:place". Therefore "addr:place" replaces "addr:street". Xxzme (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, addr:place is no replacement to addr:street. Instead, in those instances where addr:place can be added to an object, it may not be appropriate to also add addr:street. For example, a shop inside of a mall would have addr:place="Name of Mall". --Jgpacker (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, addr:street and addr:place are mutually exclusive. You have to use addr:place, when there no "addr:street" but you have "some area" with address (neighbourhood, allotments, shops in mall). Probably "replacement" was bad way to describe that. Xxzme (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that they are mutually exclusive. But that is not the point of this discussion. I think that replacement is a bad word and it should be described better. Chrabros (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
They are. Sometimes, addresses don't contain name of some street. Some addresses are made by principe "<name of some territory>, <number of house>". It can be name of village, islands, territorial zone or any other object (sometimes, there is no existing object with some name). If we use another tag (not addr:street) for such addresses, it will be better for understanding and for software. - Proposed_features/addr:place. Xxzme (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your changes to Overpass API/Overpass QL


would you mind adding your comments to the Overpass API/Overpass QL discussion page instead of adding some "Stub" entries. That's much easier to handle and doesn't clutter the page too much right now.

Also, can you be a bit more specific what kind of information you're looking for or what is not clear from the description?

Thanks, Mmd (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We need more examples how to use different options for end-users (not developers) and explanation why they should prefer one option over another. I'd happily add them by myself but I have no good ideas right now. Therefore you see {{stub}}s in text where text should be expanded with examples. Xxzme (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty of material on the example page. However, that's in German at this time unfortunately, but the Overpass QL examples should make some sense anyhow. For the recurse part, do you think about something like the following example?
Something like that, English text should be verbose since OverpassQL is very expressive and every character (especially "recurse" function) should be explained instruction-by-instruction. Otherwise end-users (not true developers) will have trouble creating their own queries. Regarding content organisation, examples can be placed in their own page "Examples", but then they should be cross-linked from language guide. Language guide is really hard to read if you don't understand overpass internals or not experienced with QL. German page have some example and it should be definitely translated, but I don't speak German at any level. Xxzme (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
For the "print (out)" part, I could think about some kind of table layout with object type (node, way, relation) as row, degree of verbosity as column header and some actual XML/JSON result in the cell. Do you think that would be more helpful? Mmd (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, but will be 2D table enough? Xxzme (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mmd that creating stub entries isn't useful at all. Example: If anything, it makes the wiki seem more incomplete to end users. --Jgpacker (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well stubs are not for end users, but then maybe we should use different label? I use Stub as bookmark for myself and other wiki editors. Is there better label template for this task? Should I use my userpage for this? Yes it is visible and annoying to end users who only want to raed page, but is there better option?
Stubs at top level pages from Main_page may discract people, but stubs deep inside may be actually usefull. Sometimes you actually want to know that thing X exists (simples way is just to put stub or redlink somewhere). As you may see Wikimapia page wasn't there for a long time and some OSM users will see it's name for the first time.
Xxzme (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you intend to add content for this page in the future, then it's okay, but otherwise I think it may be better to create the page only when there is content. I think most pages are only seen when people read or look for information that leads to them, so I don't think a stub page increases awareness about a service. --Jgpacker (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely forgot about Category:Navigational_templates. There no need to use stubs, but also observed weird detail about missing automatic cats - is this done on purpose? Usually mediawikis use automatic categories for navbox title and for each group1,group2 title (See Template:Navbox). But osmwiki is different for some reason, why it is so? Is there any reason against it? Xxzme (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how it works in Wikipedia, but I don't see any problem in automatically adding categories for pages adding this template. Maybe this could be added to Template:Navbox by adding the line <includeonly>{{#if:{{{name|}}}|[[Category:{{{name}}}]]|}}</includeonly>. But I think that preferably links should only be added in such navigational templates after pages with content were created for these links. The thing is that it's not a problem if we don't have a page about every other related service in OSM. This kind of information is available in other places too, and if someone wants to add them to the wiki, they can do so. The thing about the stubs is that you can create them, but they must have some content (at least description and link to homepage). --Jgpacker (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's clarify: are navboxes with redliks okay? Because I have plans for these blue boxes as nav templates: Using_OpenStreetMap#Software_development, Develop. In some languages (developing wikis) they will be only with red links. Xxzme (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think stub pages with some content are preferred to red links. Shouldn't other languages default to the english pages? --Jgpacker (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Well okay. Regarding "Shouldn't other languages default to the english pages?": assume you speak only PL, how EN page can help you? You can only judge about tag meaning by images or some tables/cross links, you don't have real understanding of tag. More comlicated schema will result in more missing information. You don't always have image for every single tag in schema. I also believe that user who saw something (pictures, similar symbols without real meaning of word) will have false believe that he has understanding of tag. While this statement is true for every language (even for EN_GB locale), this is especially true for less maintained wikis. Actually we need mechanism to promt user about outdated info at this page (translationoutofsync) - this should be done automatically (by extension translate) and not manually after tag was misunderstood by some language group. Template:Pl:Map_Features:aerialway PL wiki sends users to en locale, but I'd rather show red links to RU users. Red link will warn them about infomation they may miss. Xxzme (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the wiki still has a long way to go before becoming more friendly to non-english speakers :-/. I think it would be great if a red link to XX language would show you which other languages are available for that page. Someday I want to make a bot that at the very least fixes links that point to an english page even though the page is already available in the page's respective language. Not only can english-only pages be misleading, they can be a bit intimidating to the average guy. --Jgpacker (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

delete a cat

When you propose to delete a category please do not already remove its members! That is making facts before discussion about deletion and makes discussion harder because you cannot see what was in the cat before your edit. Please undo those edits. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well sadly I'm not aware of tools to review mediawiki content over time (esp categories). I understand how painfull it may be to do it manually. I do that quite often. But common rule is 'be bold' and not 'ask everyone first'. My edits pretty obvius if you follow my edit history. Misleading and useless content (identical page, almost duplicate categories) only wastes end-user time. Wiki should be clean, at least part that faced to end users. If you have any suggestions how "Editing" category can be redone, I open to discuss it. Xxzme (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, be bold - but you started a discussion, a deletion proposal. That is a non-bold action. You asked others to discuss a deletion. But at the same time you already deleted a bit of the content - that makes no sense. I hope I could express it more clearly now.
Of course, I know your edit history page and I could revert - but wouldn't it be nice if you could undo your own error? Also you might better know in which edits you touched some pages related to this category. Anyway, I have reverted those now (except ArcGIS, which really seemed to be misplaced). When roughly looking at your edits it seemed to be more like you are creating facts before discussion than it really was. I would just avoid such edits when you start a proposal - or use a clearer edit comment.
Please discuss the editing category at its talk page. I do not see your problem with it. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

create discussion sections

Hey Xxzme, please, if you propose a merge or a deletion, create the discussion section and mention your reason/explanation there. Offline_Openstreetmap, Directional. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Explanation was given in template parameter it is just not shown by template. Empty page should appear as red link, I'm against to "stub" any talk pages. If there nothing to add at talk page, then it should be empty (red link). Xxzme (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You proposed a page for deletion, so you invite for discussion about it. So create one. Having your explanation on the talk page then makes it easier to follow the discussion. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I see now, but real reason because there multiple pages affected and not because talk page was empty. Xxzme (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
no, both. I will get out of the wiki now... --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

links in headings

... are awful. Headings are headings. Please do not clutter them with links. Waah.. -Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they are, but if we main we also increasing vertical length of page [3] [4] (License and disclaimer were spitted, but page is still vertically smaller). Also, we do not edit wiki for ourself, readers of osm wiki should vote what method is the best. We can ask people to vote, before we make any guideline. Also, does Wikipedia folk have convention regarding this? Xxzme (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course the wiki is for the readers. They want vertically short pages? They want links in headings which makes them harder to read? If you think they think different try to make a vote. ;-) Wikipedia? Have you ever seen links in headings there? I guess: no.
Sorry, your speed of edits is too much. I do not want to spend that much time here in editing the wiki. Please also go out and survey for mapping! :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Not really, you just treat users as idiots. Instead of text: Here you will have link to main page: google everybody at web uses semantic syntax (not dumb wikipedia) uses google: main page. It is 2014 now, HTML was invented over 10 years ago. There no need to put warn about "main" page or about every single <a> tag you want to place. Xxzme (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That is no warning. That is a description of the link because users might prefer to read the full article instead of the summary in that section. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You can put description in a tag!
<a href="">actual meaning of your link here</a>
actual meaning of your link here<a href="">useless text</a>
Wow, exciting, isn't? Do you really prefer second? Are you okay? Xxzme (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

take a break

It looks like we are seeing the start of a wiki edit war here. That doesn't help anyone. Please take a break to cool down a bit, and please discuss future edits before making a lot of changes. --Lyx (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Chrabros (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Users have in the past been blocked from editing the wiki ([5], [6]). It would be a great shame if it happened again. --Andrew (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with the advice being given here. I too was doing too much wiki work for a while, and was getting too stressed out. A break from the wiki worked wonders, and made me realize how I shouldn't try too hard to organize the wiki. The wiki has an endless ammount of work to be done and should be made by a whole community and not just a couple of dudes. --Jgpacker (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not going to happen. Well not everybody interested in whole wiki and how it is organised. Do you really hope that by doing isolated edits to single pages you will remove/resolve broken navigation or missing cross-links? In contrast to this, if some users decide to make new category structure, they will make consistent edits unlike community where each individual will put their cats. Not every wiki edit aware of full wiki structure, they will invent their cats with reductant functionality. Consistency is better for navigation. It doesn't help content and it will always need improvements and updates. Xxzme (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that at times you are suppressing other ideas or other ways to do things, which isn't wiki-like. It's okay if a category has few members. It's okay if a category still doesn't exist. If someone is interested, s/he will expand the idea. It's also okay if a category is simply grouping related pages and is not a "feature". And it's okay if a category is more generic than specific. Let me be clear in what is the problem here: "You are trying to fit most categories and main pages into the way you view things (which is a large scale change), and without discussing previously with other users even though there are complaints." To take a break is something useful to cool down your head and start seeing things in a fresh perspective. --Jgpacker (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Without real examples discussion will be pointless
That not my fault if author left category with single article and it was kept as it is for 3-4 years.
Thats not my fault if Category:Wiki defined as "content relevant to wiki maintenance'. I will remove features pages from here and other irrelevant content. I will not ask anyone before any of these edits.
If author was so lazy that he didn't put even Wiki_guidelines#Categories single line about what should be in this category thats not my fault, I will interpret this category based on current wiki structure and articles contained in category.
There was proposal to separate content for each user based on role Talk:Main_Page#Proposal_to_change_the_main_page. There Category:Portals if you want cross-link content.
We had talk with you about manual categories. They will never work and they are broken right now for language pages. But there templates like Template:Public transport and if you want overlapping categories, then put them in templates, put several templates (Template:trams) at each page (Category:Features, Category:Tags, Category:Keys page)) so you will have multiple automatic categories from templates. Manually placed categories are awful. You can edit categories for 40 pages using templates. I wonder why you advocating manual categories. Xxzme (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I never agreed that manual categories are bad. I don't even understand what you mean by You can edit categories for 40 pages using templates.. Can you give an example?
By the way, one thing you are doing badly is that you are forcing things to fit into this "automatic" categories scheme, even when they were better the way they were before. Such as adding education facilities to Category:Education features instead of simply Category:Education (which is the way they were before). Also the odd Directional and Lifecycle pages.
Also, your current rate of wiki editing is really bad, because wiki veterans will want to review your edits (just like they do for everybody else). Anyone can make mistakes, and it's easier for the veterans to catch them at the moment they are done (which is not being possible right now due to limited time). If you have too much free time I suggest you make more OpenStreetMap edits. Seriously, you made over 500 wiki edits in the last 15 days.
--Jgpacker (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Well you can see for yourself, just place category in Template:Public transport it will be included for every page that uses template [7]. We even have to limit where this cat will appear. Quite simple, do I really need to explain this?
I'm sorry but I have free time now and not anytime after. You are always free to ask wiki admins about "reviewed" pages with "stable" content. Speed of my edits is not argument, you can always review my changes and discuss them if you really want that. Speed of editing wasn't problem for anyone in OSM or OSM wiki. You cannot observe everything or review every edit in OSM but you have means for this if you really want this to happen.
Thats not me forcing anything. Thats somebody does not follow Wiki_guidelines#Categories: category should contain main page with same name (this was advised not by me. This was advised to keep readers focused and to protect sanity of wiki editors when we have undefined categories everywhere). Category:Education is not defined, moreover it is filled with content related with school activities, this content irrelevant in Category:Features or in any of it's subcategory (Category:Education features in this case). Category:Education belongs somewhere else, probably we should leave as top page as it is right now Category:Categories. Probably we should define it and link from Category:Promotion or Category:OSM Community. I cannot put proper cats every single cat, right now I busy with cats inside Category:Categories. Probably this category was poorly named and we should rename it. See Education, Research. This content is absolutely irrelevant in Category:Features. Xxzme (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

uncooperative actions

Hello Xxzme, on pages such as Develop, Offline Openstreetmap and others I've noticed you engage in edit wars to force your changes through. You have also generally shown a pattern of ignoring objections from others, such as on Comparison of life cycle concepts, where you proceeded with your suggested merge (a "merge" with a page you had just created!). I also get the impression that you are making large, sweeping changes to pages regardless of what previous authors' goals for them might have been, such as with Google Map Maker. Overall, I'm pretty frustrated that almost all my wiki time is used up talking about and correcting your unilateral changes. I've seen on the discussion about Map Features that you can listen to and implement feedback, so I hope that you can apply this elsewhere and we can work together better in the future. --Tordanik 09:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lie. No, I do not ignore talk pages or page history. If somebody don't want to discuss changes and simply reverts my edits without meaningful comment thats not my fault. Bye. Xxzme (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I fully admit that I should have used a better edit comment for my revert on the Develop page, that part was my fault. I should have calmed down before editing. But that is not a valid reason for edit wars. And I find it odd that you focus on this topic when 3 of your 4 changes on that page didn't have an edit comment at all, and your use things like "update since my last visit" [8] as a revert comment.
I'm also disappointed that you chose to cherry-pick the topic of changeset comments and ignore the underlying issue: You need to communicate with others, and when your goal is to restructure big parts of the wiki, then please communicate before acting. --Tordanik 09:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Try harder [9]. I put Wiki_organisation#Labels at pages before any big edits/close to top level cat/Main page. If somebody reverts them without discussion thats not my fault. If somebody ignores them thats not my fault. I cannot inform every single user. I have no idea what do you expect from me.
I don't need communicate with others when there obvious problem in wiki: irrelevant content in Wiki_guidelines#Categories when they are clearly defined what should be inside, outdated translation and outdated wiki structure.
Develop page have disambiguation at page itself, it is clearly states that page Develop about developing platform itself. Therefore I moved irrelevant links where they belong: Using_OpenStreetMap#Software_development = "Develop using OSM". Xxzme (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please discuss before continuing to try to significantly change an established page (Java Runtime Environment) despite opposition? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to lie. Who do you want to fool? Your established page contains outdated information in 5 sections and you simply reverting my efforts without discussion. Liar. Annoying liar. Xxzme (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I really were hoping that, in the meantime, we can work together but not against... --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly thats why you don't revert other people changes without asking why it was done this way and not another. You saw only 30% of my job and you reverting it. How I could make any change if you revert my every step? My point is that we hide outdated content right now. If anybody else will have problems with macos or ubuntu installation we will move them to the front page as popular problems. There no point to teach Arch user how to install java. They are not that stupid, believe me. Link to main download site is enough for everyone. Thats why I left only 1 link (and Windows platform as example).
Does this make sense for you? I cannot explain everything in changeset comment. 1. I don't have time for that. 2. I waste my time 3. I'm not finished updating wiki Xxzme (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your changes to Namespace

Hi, the wiki history does not work for me and you did not leave any changeset comment. Can you explain your edits? RicoZ (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I just added links to disused, source namespaces and sorted keys by name. Xxzme (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Finally can see what you were trying to do now that the history function works again, seems not only the history was broken. For now I would leave the "general purpose" namespace examples separate from the other ("domain specific") examples. RicoZ (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
All namespaces are domain-specific. addr for addresses, contact for contact, is_in for imitating geo functions etc. Xxzme (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did mean the distinction between namespaces which can be applied to almost all tags (like language code suffix) and namespaces like "climbing:" which are for climbing only. RicoZ (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody did that before, why there need for this? Xxzme (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Conceptually they are very different. "climbing:deepwater" is just a nice formatting of a string as key name. In "name:el" the "el" is an additional qualifier (attribute) and is expected to have a consistent meaning for all main keys where it is applicable. If "deepwater" were to be added as subkey to other objects (eg "diving:deepwater") it would have most likely a completely different meaning.. which is actually a problem and should be explained.
deepwater is just tag in wiki terminology. diving: and climbing: are namespaces. Specifically prefix namespaces see my answer here: Talk:Key:disused#Rename_to_.22key:disused:.22_.3F. Xxzme (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have started the discussion on your talk page because of the difficulties with history function, but it might be a good idea to continue this discussion to the namespace talk page if there is anything left to discuss? RicoZ (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove image links for non-public domain images

e.g. there. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But this is not mine link to image. I didn't notice this image was not free, can we reupload files, so there no need to delete/change links to it everywhere? Xxzme (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that you did not upload and insert the image. I only noticed the image because you made a change to its inclusion.
Do you mean to have another image under the same name? Yes, that would be possible after deletion (e.g. simply by a redirect). However, I guess it is not used much, just in those two deletion templates. A change is easy there and should be made instead. However, do not remove it until we really decided to delete it.
Your change just made the situation a bit worse (because it was not possible to easily find out who made this image) which is why I have reverted it. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not move text without mentioning the source

Please do not move text without mentioning the source as done there. This is violating the author's copyrights and is just bad practise (not clear who/why wrote this text). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but how I do archive old content then? Should I simple remove text from page, without creating new page with old text? Text will be in wiki history anyway and its original authours, unless we decide to remove original page (only with redirect).Xxzme (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please look at the page's history now, I have added it in the meantime. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

image revert



you reverted this image to its old version. However JOSM asks also for the source long ago, so the screenshot should show this. This is the reason why I replaced the screenshot. Instead of reverting the old screenshoot, you could provide a better one.

Also I don't understand why "+cliff" should be a bad changeset comment. It's this changeset. All I did was adding a cliff. "+" is a common abbreviation for "add". So please tell me why "+cliff" is a bad changeset comment and what I should have written instead.

Hello! Well I reverted image because comment should be more descriptive, see Good changeset comments. We should find another changeset with more verbose and descriptive text like "updated shops at XYZ ave based on ...". I couldn't find any ATM, I will be happy if you update this file with another changeset and more descriptive message. Xxzme (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Good changeset comments says "Added buildings in industrial area." is an example of a good changeset comment. So, where the changeset is located is obvious when you just open the changeset at So this information is some kind of redundant. So basically in my eyes "Added buildings in industrial area." and "+cliff" contain the same information. Also "...based on..." is better written in the source tag. I agree that "+cliff" could be written more descriptive, but I think this has no high priority. In my eyes, instead of writing what I did in the chageset, it is more important why I made the changeset. If I just add something, it is obvious, that it was missing before. If I change existing data it is good when I explain, why I changed it. So e.g. I change something on a road, which is not yet visible on aerial imagery. I could write "change lanes at mainstreet in new york" (which would fit as example of a "good" changeset comment on Good changeset comments), but "lanes (roadwork)" would be much better.
Here is truly good changeset comment: "modified priorities of E St, NY Ave, and 17th St for consistency purposes". Can you replace "+cliff" with something more verbose. "+cliff" may be absolutely fine, but we should show newcomers that they should be more verbose than "+cliff" "+rock" or even worse: "updates" "additions" Xxzme (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please cooperate with the community

There have been complaints about you changing Wiki content in the middle of a discussion where most of the users did not agree with you. It looks like you are trying to force your point of view into the documentation, excluding others. Please remember this is a community project and it can only work with (rough) consensus and not with one user forcing his point of view on others. I request you to stop making Wiki edits (mis-)representing your point of view as the only valid one. If complaints continue I will have to block your account from editing.

There nothing wrong if my opinion is misrepresented at some page. What I really hate about some editors our there simply revert any changes without discussion or contacting me. This happens quite often with some people.
But unlike others I don't cry to closest admin about uncooperative edits. I quite verbose at talk pages and in most of my edit comments. I did several thousands edits and no single person said thank you for removing outdated content. Oh thank you for updating categories. Instead I have to listen pure lie about my edits and my intentions. That is not okay.
For some strange reason I never asked to ban anyone(okay, just once, but these changes were really important/misleading for readers), but instead continue to edit wiki pages and use talk pages when discussion is required.
Whats wrong with it? Xxzme (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability of trail_visibility=*

You've said : "{{Verifiability}} cause it was mentioned at Verifiability as bad example)" Could you elaborate on that ? Or is that just because you read it on those ungry's wiki haters page ? Until we have a serious discussion about what isn't verifiable in that said talk, I propose to just remove that box. sletuffe (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't care about these two tags, but I do care that content at Verifiability page and respective pages [10] [11] should be consistent / represent same opinion.
Right now Verifiability says there problem in tags X and Y (they are not verifiable at least in some situations), but pages tag:X and tag:Y say there absolutely no problem in these tags. That's not okay.
Please instead of simply removing these labels from pages tag:X, tag:Y, find original author of these words and ask him why this "hate text" was placed at Verifiability and how you can rewrite it / illustrate with real world examples. Right now pages tag:X and tag:y contain unclear (for some mammers) guides how to classify sac_scales. Again, this opinion was represented using label {{Verifibility}} at page tag:X. It's wasn't just "hate label", it was opinion of some part of mappers in OSM and you simply removed it from pages tag:X and tag:Y. That's not okay IMO.
Author may be inactive right now, then I suggest you to ask question about text at Verifiability at I think there will be people who have idea why "hate text" was placed at Verifiability and wasn't removed since 2010 untill you decided to update it.
Again, I don't really care about sac_scale tag, but I use trail_visibility in my mapping. Nevertheless I do not remove notice that some tag may cause problem for other mappers (trail_visibility in my case). Xxzme (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
IMHO "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." should be used on the OSM's wiki, since those who wrote Verifiability have done it after the tags they are mentionning where described, then finding and discussion the proof of "unverifiability" is theirs duty, not mine. Else I would just have to write the page Verifiability wiki page examples are wrong without any arguments and I could mark that very page's section as unverifiable itself ? I'm more than happy to discuss problems about tags, but I need someone to start it with ! About your position now, if you don't care about those two tags I suggest to let other who cares express themselves and don't add infobox or text around pages whose content you don't care sletuffe (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Well you talk about something different. We are not lawyers, we are regular mappers, your legal term does not apply in OSM until we really have problem with law. Everything was already described at Verifiability#Improving_Verifiability_by_Documenting_Values.
I suggest to let other who cares express themselves and don't add infobox or text around pages whose content you don't care thats only your opinion. We also care about problems with sac_scale it was here since feb 2009.
I suggest you to study problem with smoothness=* as example and relevant talks about this indeed problematic tag [12] and ask others how to improve guides about sac_scale, so they are easier to use/interpret by other mappers, not only you. Xxzme (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why bring smoothness=* in here ? I won't pretend there is a consensus about that tag, I'm talking about sac_scale and visibility. Anyway, we'll have to agree that we desagree at this point. Would it be fine for you if we use the same presentation as on the smoothness=* page, at the same place, with content in the line of :
Based on the guideline of Verifiability some people find this tag lacking of verifiablity. Please have a look at the discussion page at Talk:Proposed_features/Hiking 
and make up your own mind. As always on OSM you are free
to use the keys you like in the way you like! You can use the talk page for suggesting improvement.

? sletuffe (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with any text you choose but leave cross-link to Verifiability alone:
1. Please update Template:Verifiability with any text you wish (neutral or not neutral) as freetext parameter.
2. Please place link to main page (Verifiability) using {{Verifiability}} as it was done before (by me [13][14]). Xxzme (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion has a cross link to verifiability. It comes in replacement of the template. Both if content and place in the page. sletuffe (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, is it better now? [15] [16] Xxzme (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said : same presentation as on the smoothness=* page at the same place, with content xxx. I've done it, is it better now ? sletuffe (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
More or less but I prefer to change text in template (in single place) rather than track each page if link to Verifiability is present or not. You can change position of {{Verifiability}} from top of the page to somewhere else, I will be fine with that. Xxzme (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You can use the "what links here" of the Verifiability page. Text in template are too rigid, most likely, we will link to discussion page's topic, what are the main point of dispute in a short summary, etc. If your templates becomes en empty shell of parametric text and links, it loose ease of use for no advantages. KIS. sletuffe (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

3D Buildings as a feature page?

Hello Xxzme! As I have been involved with the "Simple 3D Buildings" tagging scheme since it's creation several years ago, I'm following the changes to it very closely. Thus I've noticed that you changed it as well as related pages to turn it into a "feature" page. I've always envisioned the Simple 3D Buildings page as a documentation of a carefully maintained standard, though, not just as a collection of tags related to 3D buildings. That's why I don't really like the implications involved with the "feature" classification. Perhaps we could discuss your motivations for the change? --Tordanik 14:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Currently there single overview page on this topic at wiki. Well there should be pages at least:

I will be happy if you remove techical details from Simple 3D Buildings to separate page for developers, even there will be some duplicate content at wiki afterwards. Xxzme (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I took time and made actual change. Is this separation okay?
Xxzme (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about what to do with these redirects:
Should we place disambiguation pages instead of redirects? Xxzme (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see any benefit in splitting the page in two almost-identical pages. It doubles the maintenance and translation effort and introduces a risk of divergent development.
And as you apparently misunderstood my intentions before, let me rephase: I think the page was perfect the way it was and see no reason for any fundamental changes. As such, I would be grateful if you could revert your changes. --Tordanik 01:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Benefit is to simplify text to overview page. Address page does not cover every detail of Karlsruhe Schema or AddrN proposal or street relations. This page used as landing page for tag group. Well currently there somewhat recent trend in OSM wiki to create page for each tag group:
and so on, there 78 features right now. Where should I place tags:
I'm not creating Simple 3D_Buildings for mappers to duplicate content (it is duplicated at wiki at major overview pages already) but to keep readers expectations about how to navigate wiki using Template:Description. With best regards. Xxzme (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The feature page concept is sometimes useful, but is unfortunately also sometimes forced in where it does not make sense. This leads to meaningless stripped-down tag and key pages and forces the user to read many pages where previously only one or two were necessary. What I'm trying to say is: Copying an approach that works elsewhere is not automatically good in a different context. And if something is already well documented, then don't restructure just for the sake of restructuring. --Tordanik 13:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I restructure pages in hope that they will be easier to navigate and more cross-referenced per each article. You need some "main" page (feature) that will point to minor pages (tag/keys). Cross-references between minor pages (tag/keys) will also help, but main "feature" page is required to guide reader. You can think about feature page as of table of contents rather than real article.
As alternative to Simple 3D_Buildings as feature we can expand Buildings page with "Simple 3D_Buildings" section. What do you think? If we go this way, I will use |group=Buildings instead of |group=Simple 3D_Buildings for mappers/|group=Simple 3D_Buildings Xxzme (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with using group=Buildings for 3D-related building tags. I don't really see a need for more than the current "3D" section on the Buildings feature page, though. Isn't that enough for a "table of contents"? --Tordanik 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well we use single link at Addresses#Address_schema, so yes. I forgot that we have Building page and I didn't consider it as main page for 3dbuilding tags. Instead I saw Simple 3D_Buildings without feature header, so decided to add it and group relevant tags together. Xxzme (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy that we have found a good solution. There were some redirects that didn't get updated to the latest situation, but I've fixed them since. --Tordanik 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I overlooked them. Thank you! Xxzme (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


I see a disturbing pattern on the version history of the RU:Tag:natural=grassland page, that looks a lot like the beginning of an edit war again. Apparently you insist on changing the definition of this tag to something that would include a lot more things than what is included in the English version. Maybe you have misunderstood the meaning of the English version, maybe others are misunderstanding the intent of your changes. However, please remember that this is a community project and can only work if users try to find a common understanding. If you can't convince the Russian community that your definition of this tag will be an improvement then don't try to force it. --Lyx (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well user BushmanK haven't read Proposed_features/Grassland. Not "my definition". It was accepted in 2011-09-11. English version was incorrect for 3 years. Next time you should revert T99 edits faster. Xxzme (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice try. No, I should not revert T99 edits faster, because they actually improved the page, so that also the people that did not notice that this tag uses the "natural" key get the information that this is to be used for natural areas only. --Lyx (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thats not how Proposal process works. It was accepted with that definition and not another. Proposal about tag clarification wasn't even discussed.
Users agreed with given definition without comments and now you trying to make guess about T99 edit was valid or not.
User T99 altered definition of the tag without consulting community and you trying to advocate him. Xxzme (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The edits by T99 did not alter the definition, just made the wording easier to understand. I know you are aware of the definition of the natural key, and looking at your edits of the "Natural" page I'm afraid you plan to "improve" that as well. Don't. If you think (almost) every one got it wrong and only you got it right, think again. If you want to make changes in a community project like OSM, you have to convince the community. Trying to force your point of view will result in a ban. --Lyx (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The edits by T99 did not alter the definition, just made the wording easier to understand. That's only your misinterpretation. Pretty much everyone can check that original definition "Areas where the vegetation is dominated by grasses (Poaceae) and other herbaceous (non-woody) plants." was altered to "Natural areas where".
This practice is agaisn't Proposal process and all users who voted "yes" for THAT definition.
If you want to make changes in a community project like OSM, you have to convince the community. No. I simply update tag page according accepted definition. Xxzme (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, apparently you really think that your interpretation is more important than the community. That's what complaints from the Russian community also said. I was hoping a verbal warning would be enough, but apparently not. Sorry it did not work out. I will ask another admin to ban you permanently. --Lyx (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well apparenly you banhammer too much to ask original author of tag page about definition and original intention. So busy reverting my changes without discussing it at tagging list or contacting people who voted "yes" for that stupid definition Lyx doesn't like. Xxzme (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Data layer -> Map Data layer

Why did you move the page from its long-standing title to a new one? I think "better title" isn't really a good enough reason. --Tordanik 13:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I forgot to link image: File:Layer picker sidebar.png "Map Data", not "Data" - it will be confusing for readers. However I'm not if image outdated or not. Xxzme (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if UI correct or we should change labels at
At wiki there Notes, not "Map Notes"
And Data layer, not "Map Data"
But we cannot refer to "Map Data" label simply as "Data". Xxzme (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Title is not long standing, text label was updated 3 times, but title wasn't altered: "Data" "Browse map data"> "map data" > "Map Data". Xxzme (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The title of the wiki page was long standing, not the UI on, which - as you showed - changes all the time. This makes the UI a bad basis for wiki page names. In my opinion, the old name was better, but now that you have already changed lots of pages with the new links, I'm not motivated enough to roll back.
And if you do change things, please pay attention to avoid errors like this one. --Tordanik 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well errors are unavoidable especially if you edit almost identical articles, differences in single characters are hard to spot, even if they break some functionality. I don't remember what was happening to me at 2015-04-20 but I did same mistake with JA; and FR: namespace [17] [18].
I don't remember why I did these edits or what was my intention or what forced me to make them. Xxzme (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
> This makes the UI a bad basis for wiki page names. Yes but we should use different terms from website simply because they update translation more often. Readers will be confused by inconsistent terminology. Terminology is not perfectly uniform among projects, I see not reason why we should confuse readers even more. Xxzme (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Toilet holding tank pages

The sanitary tagging was described as a complete scheme, thus my choice to use Template:ValueDescription twice. If you want to reorganize that page, it's fine, but would you consider instead creating a top level page for the scheme, then child pages for the three ValueDescriptions (waterway, amenity and attribute)? There's also the issue of keeping the four languages in sync, as the page has already been translated three times. Brycenesbitt (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we use proposals to keep "original proposal". Key: and Tag: pages:
  1. intended for clear definitions "right here"
  2. intended to describe to each overlapping tagging scheme if there any Key:usage, Key:type, Key:construction
  3. expected to have single template (KeyDescription or ValueDescription)
  4. for feature page you may create new review article located in Category:Features (see Buildings for example)
with best regards Xxzme (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want to break the content apart according to that scheme, I do not object. But please don't fix just part of it and leave it messy. Brycenesbitt (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I only have interest in 1. correct definition in the templates 2. correct status 3. correct statuslink
> just part of it and leave it messy. Well not everyone have interest or time to maintain everything. I do maintain Template:ValueDescription Template:KeyDescription Template:Description templates and their definitions. Probably there inconsistent content or lost references after I moved template to right place (Key:page). If you can do better then me, then please move template about sanitary_dump_station=* from Tag:amenity=sanitary_dump_station to Key:sanitary_dump_station. Thank you! Xxzme (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If you leave a mess for me to clean up, I will revert your edit. If you work to create a better page I will support you. Brycenesbitt (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thats not how editing at wiki works. If you want to play with revert button so be it. Spam templates. I don't care about your tags. There thousands of more important tags. I will leave pages inaccessible for popular OSM software. Xxzme (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It's rude to mess up other's work on a wiki. I appreciate your cleanup work, but you are unnecessarily making a mess here. Respect the content of the pages you edit, not just their conformance to some style guideline. Brycenesbitt (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

osm website "is just fine"

Is it? Anyway, it's been throwing errors for 15 minutes now (it's up as of now), and the API results server errors for several people. --grin 21:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is: I can lougout, login again and review PMs. I was browsing without browser cache. History and change-sets work fine. But I'm not sure about API errors, you should set different status in platform.
It may be due to provider or geo-region specific problems. Xxzme (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Were you able to login and logout between 21:30 - 21:40? Both top and inner URLs resulted server errors. I was checking Notes and nothing worked for that period, and API was intermittently giving server errors too. But seems to be resolved - for now. I don't believe in computer self-healing. :-) [Neither seems pingdom do.] --grin 22:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, I was testing right before my edit 21:44-21:45 [19]. Xxzme (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi, you just changed my edits i made this morning for weeklyOSM. That´s ok for me, but we should go one direction then and work together :-) We just started to build up our wiki pages and i am thinking about categories and so on. There are connections between different projects and schools and it´s not only "any news blog" or "user blog". So we have to refine the categories again. Please be patient with us :-) We are working on it! Cheers --Ziltoidium (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Well Category:News is outdated ('11 cat) and not really maintained when it comes to actual content, I think should move away from that approach that's why I removed your original "news" cat. Please review cats here: Category:OSM Community - most of them more usable than "news". See also recent changes in Category:Categories. Content referring to schools can be found here: Category:Education Xxzme (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Ok, thanks for your answer. I will check it later and try to find a way :-) --Ziltoidium (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass category changes

You have been changing categories on a ton of pages in the last few days. Why? Your only edit comment is "cat.", which is really not enough to let us know what is going on. --Tordanik 15:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because Language version wasn't updated and belong to different category in Category:Categories. Do you have examples?
You can compare "old" cats to "newer" cat for every edit.
Sometimes I was just removing old cats and placing label "translation out of sync", so translators will update outdated translation and place newer cats. Xxzme (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiki structure was significantly changed since translators made their last updates.
See Category:Categories/translations and old Category:Documentation. Xxzme (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I also suggest to XXzme to be more careful, notably when he renames Englmish categories and completely forgets to track the other languages.
Many of its deletion requests are anticipated before doing the ACTUAL work needed for the Cleanup (but also without breaking links from other languages: make sure that the Languages template at top of English pages continues to use in its parameter the old name of the English page, unlless you have ALSO renamed ALL the existing translations (something you cannot do safely when the actual translated pages are already renamed with a redirect to a localized name: you have to track the redirects too!)
So in summary, please be more careful, and don't anticipate deletion requests by looking at what you're doing in the English-only pages ! You need to respect more the work that has been done by contributors in other languages, this Wiki must NOT return again to an English-only site. It HAS to be more international and respect the precious work made by translators (even if you think these pages are outdated, this is not a valid reason for deleting them or making them inaccessible). — Verdy_p (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm not touching versions than doesn't follow Category:Categories structure. Before your work, only EN: JA: namespace was well maintained (and maybe few others).
If text is outdated, then category structure is outdated too, I don't see reason to update only categories without updating text. If you plan to update categories for outdated text, then place label TranslationOfSync Wiki_organisation#Labels. Xxzme (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is recent example: DE:Rendered Map Updates is older version of Featured tiles/Updates. It is without cats at all and it it says something absolutely different from English page. I don't see why we should copy categories from English page to German version without updating German translation first. Xxzme (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding deletion proposal, I placed label to inform users that this category is outdated and should be removed soon, it was stated at talk page: Category talk:Documentation.
template Delete and Delete proposal are two different things, I think you confusing Delete proposal with actual Delete template. Xxzme (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You think incorrectly if you think about what I think. Let me think by myself, because I'm not confused. Thanks. I understand the difference (the Delete is only for contents that has been completely migrated, now empoty, unreference, these are just empty pages remaining, or unnecessary duplicates. However "delete proposals" are also something to discuss and formalize BEFORE posting the proposal: that template requires a preparation work to explain clearly what has to be done for the migration. It was really not clear how you would prepare the work. All I have done was first preparing the work by sorting languages, making sure that they were correctly parented and interlinked (but as you did not do that, and did not check links, you could not realize that your deletion proposal was too much anticipated).
So yes, even if you've cleaned the English version, it cannot be deleted for now as long as there remains many translations to migrate (and for that we need to inform also other translators: be prepared to discuss with them and explain your plan). — Verdy_p (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"and for that we need to inform also other translators" exactly for that reasons labels are exits. All of these move/merge/split section are nohow different from deletion proposal. And if you don't place them, they will be invisible from Category:Cleanup / Category:Wiki. Actual discussion (is needed at all) happens at talk page (therefore you see link "discuss" in labels). Xxzme (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You are not discuissing them: you FIRST post a banner, you make the changes (only partly, just for English, because you are feeling a bit to lazy to look at the consequences on other pages and also fix them), but you have not discussed anything.
For each one of your change you've done in English, you forget dozens of pages (sometimes more) that you have NOT updated. Instead you are just lazily posting "outdated" banners. This is not serious your small isolated work requires MUCH work for MANY people trying to follow you.
I understand that you would like to have a much clearer site forEnglish, but it does not mean that everything else has to be dropped. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You probably overlooked statement I claimed at WikiProject_Navigation#Bigger_problem. If Vi:Main Page is different from Main Page it is not me who lazy to update it but insufficient number of Vi: translators. It will be surprising for you but many __Main Pages__ are outdated, I'm not talking about actual wiki content. Xxzme (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if you think that the Vietanmese main page is old and does not match the current state of the English, it is NOT a good justification for claiming that Vietnamese are lazy or that their page is still not useful for them. Give the time to everyone to follow the project, but with your current high rate of changes everywhere, NOBODY can follow you at the same speed.
Yes there's a need for cleanup, but not the way you do it, which is to change everything in English and claim that everything else is outdated and must be deleted ! This is inculting for everyone else than you.
So make a break, stop the reorganisation: there's MUCH enough cleanup work to do for several weeks at least if we have enough people, or for months if we are just two (you, and me trying to follow you since several days). Fill in what is missing, locate dead links, uncategorized pages, pages missing language links. Start by one category and compare all the comparable pages in other languages~, look at waht is missing.
For now we don't want more new categories (except localized categories for solving dead links). — Verdy_p (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. But you have enough justification to call me lazy for updating English namespace instead of 30 namespaces. Xxzme (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
For now we don't want more new categories this is ridiculous. English namespace is main, if there will be any change in structure, then English page / category should be updated first.
Don't waste your time on categories marked for cleanup/move/delete proposals. They will be sorted, restructured anyway and don't blame me for time you spend maintaining cats that should be quickly sorted by updating English translation. Xxzme (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Too many merges

You propose too many merges for pages that are much longer and in fact unrelated to a more general and simpler presentation : there are good reasons why some pages have been separated in separate ones for more specific topics. An example is your intent to merge THREE pages about advanced editing in JOSM, when the first one has to remain simple and link to more pages ("advanced" can mean many things, it's not possiblt to mix everything and get a clear presentation that is easy to navigate.

Before placing abnners on every page you see, you should first seek for more information and advices because there's evidence that you are eliminating a lot of things that you have not seen. Such anticipated proposal without collecting and trying to organize the EXISTING content (and make sure that everything is linked) is undesirable: you are reducing the scope of this wiki and its audience based ONLY on you own interest and your own English language.

So please stop placing random deletion proposals or merge proposals without making first your homework. There are many more useful things to do on this wiki just by reconnecting what should be connected and linked correctly without having in addition to rename just a few pages, merge some others randomly: this does not help anyone.

In adition you are placing random banners for "outdated" translations that were completed or reupdated only a few days before. But because you are changing these pages constantly, people cannot follow. Pages that have been updated a few days before are certainly not "outdated". I think I will remove several of your recent banners that just irritate various people (not just me : just consider what is on your own talk page above...).

What you are doinf is NOT "cleanup" but complete rewrite by iognoring everything that has been done by other people. A correct cleanup is to fix the real issues such as navigation problems, broken links, overcategorisation, missing interlanguage links, fixing double redirects, and so on.

Can you make a pause to your reorganisation of contents and just consider the work that already needs to be done on the existing categories without breaking all pages?

Thanks. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

English content about JOSM at this wiki is not developed. RU:JOSM/FAQ does OKAY job to answer every question from josm user. Yes it is terribly organized, but we only have to tell single link to user with question and not 3.
I don't see reason why we should use there different pages for almost same topic: JOSM/FAQ, JOSM/Advanced Tricks, JOSM/Advanced editing.
> In adition you are placing random banners for "outdated" translations that were completed or reupdated only a few days before examples please? Xxzme (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I took a look at the JOSM pages, particularly the JOSM/Guide pages and found you had blundered in there and made a whole series of messy edits. I'm sure the edits had some logic behind them, and a desire to consolidate some wiki pages (I see you wanted to bring JOSM/FAQ, JOSM/Advanced Tricks into the group even though these are old messy undeveloped pages) Your edits had the net result of turning some tidy pages into more of a mess.
This gets my attention because the JOSM/Guide pages are something I've been working on, and keeping at a high quality for several years now. People sometimes make ill-considered edits there, if they have a particular bit of information they expect to see, and want to shove it in there. That doesn't really surprise me. However it did surprise me to see so many edits made in a very short timescale, including some significant restructuring, very little discussion, and certainly no pause while people like me can see and discuss. Basically you breezed in their like a tornado. Messed things up and then moved on to other parts of the wiki.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Harry Wood. I've tried to collect all the translations so that their categorization structure are similar to the English version, and there were some good intents in what Xxxzme did when he wanted to cleanup the overcategorization, however I disagreed with its deep restructuring of many pages, notably merges or splits, and renaming without thinking about the consequences (he argued "outdated" structures for topics that are evidently important, for example he wanted to deprecate "News" completely, restricting it to only "Highlight" (i.e. only some news that are featured on the home page: this was really abusive given that the home page is not the only portal used, and developer portals or dedicated portals for some projects also have their own news).
I have restored "Highlight" (the category he created) as a **child** category of the "News" category.
Now I'm trying to reconnect many languages for which the navigation have been garbled (notably in Wikiprojects per country or per language, even if they are not part of the categorization made by Xxxzme that just considered the English home page as the only guide for the navigation: most of its edits were limited to only a specific view: only for English-speaking beginners)
I've alerted him because several other users had complained when he posted "deletion requests" in many pages, or "outdated translation" banners in pages that were just re-updated a few sdays before (after he had already changed the English page).
I said him that what he was doing was clearly not just cleanup, but deep rewriting and restructuring. And that even if some pages were not updated since long in some languages, this did not mean that they were outdated.
And I've past the last couple of weeks trying to fix many problems that he had left around (because he never checked for double redirects or for broken interlanguage links after his many renamings). However I just first assumed edits of good faiths because he did not notice the issues he created (and for most of them I have been able to fix them).
My own edits were also very fast in this period (I tried to do my best to maintain a global coherence), but only because he was also extremely fast in changing things everywhere, I had problems checking everything he left around: for each one of his edits in a single English page, I had to check a dozen of translations... But now it will be more difficult for someone to break the navigation across non-English pages.
I hope that with the many checks I did, I have resolved many broken links. The number of missing categories is highly reduced, I have also fixed various old internationalization issues (that remained since long), but without restructuring the content deeply. I tried to calm Xxxzme and think that there were good intents but that his restructuration was going too fast (it cannot be performed without performing actual cleanup for existing broken links and without making sure that when he claimed that some topics were outdated that this was really true for all languages (in several cases I've found that this was wrong).
So in conclusion, your sanction for Xxxzme is probably justified (however if you look at his talk page above, problems did not occur just since a few days, and Xxxzme apparently did not learn from these past discussions). But 3 months seems excessive for me (I have not looked to the Xxxzme's history to see if he was already blocked before, may be this is an escalation from previous blocking).
There may be other reasons for this long time. Thanks. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Еще одна правка без предварительного обсуждения моих заметок с моим опытом и я прекращу сотрудничество в вики проекта

Предупреждаю, еще одна ваша правка моих заметок без предварительного обсуждения и я прекращу сотрудничество в вики проекта --s-s-s (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Вики не место не терроризма и угроз. Игнорируете как все правят материалы и ставите свои условия как ультиматум? Это не ко мне. Xxzme (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Желаю вам успешно заполнять вики в одиночестве --s-s-s (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Don’t think for a moment that you can get away with abusing mappers if you do it in Russian; we are still reading what you’re writing.--Andrew (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
By abusing you mean following following wiki guidelines, yes I abuse others a lot. Xxzme (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months

Xxzme has been blocked from editing the wiki. The blocking action was carried out by the sysadmin User:Firefishy. I think the tipping point for this was recent complaints raised on the talk mailing list, although there have also been a steady stream of complaints against this user reaching the sysadmins via direct emails and other channels, as well as on the wiki itself.

Xxzme was banned previously, mainly for his extremely rude communication with people while he provoked editing disputes. After this ban expired Xxzme has tempered his rudeness, but still provoked disputes with his edits. Although less outlandishly rude, his recent communication style is still confrontational and arrogant. I can't see any instances of him actually adopting a casual friendly tone with fellow wiki collaborators. We have to recognise that non-native english speakers can struggle to project a friendly tone. However he has done nothing to endear himself to any fellow collaborators. Frederik pointed out that Xxzme hasn't shared any personal information about himself (or herself!) on User:Xxzme. Not something we require obviously, but it's an easy way to present a friendly face, and Xxzme chooses not to do so. A wiki doesn't need to be a popularity contest, but ultimately it is a collaboration. You cannot collaborate well without being a little bit friendly towards fellow editors.

My impression of Xxzme's wiki edits, is that they are very hit and miss in terms of quality. Every edit he makes can be justified with some sort of logic I'm sure (and of course you'll be regaled with this logic if you dare to revert him) but I see many edits I disagree with. Often making dubious decisions around how to re-organise longstanding parts of the wiki. He regularly pushes an unbalanced and sometimes quite extreme point of view through content changes, and creation of new pages. When he composes new text on the wiki, his limited english means he makes a bit of a mess of it. Perfection is not required on a wiki, and all of this would be OK except that the pace of this wiki editing coming from Xxzme has been extremely fast. Fast in terms of making changes with no time for discussion, and also fast in terms of overall editing rate. Xxzme made over 1000 edits in the past week. As I described above, looking at some pages I care about, Xxzme appeared to breeze in like a tornado, messed things up and then moved on to other parts of the wiki. Several users have commented on their struggles to keep up with Xxzme because he is editing too fast and causing too much damage. So while it might seem strange to complain about somebody editing too much, the pace of low quality edits coming from Xxzme, and causing disputes left right and centre, has been an escalating problem.

That is why we have taken the very unusual step of banning Xxzme from the OpenStreetMap wiki. The current ban put on there by Firefishy is with a duration of 3 months. I think my own conclusion would be to ban him permanently. Certainly we'll have to consider the situation carefully in August.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Please can someone explain, for the benefit of Xxzme, how they might request an unblock (for example "You may be unblocked if you give a statement that you will not do X again" or "...if you agree to do Y"), especially as the current bock includes "email disabled, cannot edit own talk page" (were either of those privileges ever abused? If not, that part of the block should be rescinded ASAP.), or what they would need to do to be allowed to continue editing once unblocked in three months' time? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC).
Yeah we can allow Xxzme to edit his talk page here. I'm not promising I'll have the time reply to him.
Not sure how to set that in block settings to be honest. Maybe you can do it Andy.
In the meantime of course nobody is stopping him replying on the mailing list. Discussion will not be out of place there, since this particular case has been pretty thoroughly discussed there too
-- Harry Wood (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Several users have commented on their struggles to keep up with Xxzme": this included me. There were effectively some reasonnable logic in what Xxxzme did, however the way he did it by restructuring deeply without first making sure that there were not a lot of things left around broken, this was hard to follow. And as when Xxxxzeme was making 1 action there were dozens of actions forgotten to do and this was extremely time-consuming.
Yes he can edit things fast, as long as he does not create a number of problems multiplied by dozens that he does not follow at all. So when editing we have to make more incremental changes (even if this means we'll need to reedit later) and check each one to see what is left around and needs to be fixed (notably in other languages).
If I had not worked (really a lot) in parallel to correct everything that Xxxzme had left around, the situation would have been much more dramatic on this wiki. But there still remains lot to do (since end of April I had to follow a lot of page changes to be notified by email, and the number of emails I received after each edit by Xxxxzme was huge: most of the time however I did not revert what Xxxzme, because I did not see a reason to do that, but the corrections were to be applied in other pages, notably when he had moved contents to pages with new topics).
So if you complain that Xxxzme made thousands of edits, what would you say to my own related correction edits that I had to do after Xxxzme's ones? Globally this required many more in the same time because this affected not just the English page but also dozens of translated pages (including Russian which is apparently the native language of Xxxzme, or a secondary language that he uses in his living region) !
I had not noticed that he had a limited knowledge of English (not really better or worse than a vast majority of editors on this wiki) so I don't see this as a severe problem. In fact English is also not my own native language, but I try to do my best to be understandable and very few people complain about this. (Even native English speakers frequently commit verious typos). This is a wiki medium and such things are easily corrected by rereaders if they want (this has no impact on the usability of the wiki, as long as our most common terminology is not deeply changed or reinvented without a solid support by an existing standard, and this does not affect pages that have been reviewed frequently by lots of users making small constructive corrections, and when these pages are certainly not "outdated" as Xxxzme pretended). — Verdy_p (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The Xxzme problem has multiple parts: high number of edits, low quality of edits, leaving things broken, and not working with others. His or her edits are a time sink: overall it's a negative, despite lots of good intentions. Brycenesbitt (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

.. I am impressed by your pace. Please keep on your mind that sometimes less is more and because we often deal with technical and data models which are not trivial, changes need time to settle and be double-checked. Don't overwhelm us.

My answer to your question in "black magic (WIP)": imagine what OSM would look like if these buttons would exist. I would think a million of monkeys would create 100 millions of tag/key description pages per day. Unlike city and country pages, key/value descriptions show up prominently in taginfo and other searches and would make real information pretty hard to find. Part of the problem is that deletion of pages here is painfully slow even in very clear-cut cases. RicoZ (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what do you mean by this, but this is more theoretical problem, "what if..."
In fact, our tag wiki isn't different from Wikipedia. Same threats, but smaller scale. You could study from them if needed.
Our wiki is more restrictive than Wikidpedia already! You HAVE TO create account in order to make single edit. Do we have good robot question during registration process?
> Part of the problem is that deletion of pages here is painfully slow even in very clear-cut cases.
admins at this wiki have to fix this by installing good plugins to drill-down content efficiently and perform routine operations on them (deletions, moves, mass rename). I think we can ask experienced Wikipedia admins what plugins to choose.
Our database is subject to meaningless spam more than this wiki and we can keep it relatively clean anyway.
I think is that we do way more mistakes during database edits than we do during definition of tags or wiki tranlsation. Xxzme (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There many ready to use solutions:
Like but I'm not sure if it possible to control access to this page. Xxzme (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

yes. Welcome back. "Changes need time to settle and be double-checked. Don't overwhelm us" is a message I would certainly like to second. You were banned because you edited too quickly for anyone to keep up with you. You breezed around the wiki changing many pages, not always for the better. All described above. And now that you're re-enabled here, I see you doing the same thing. How many edits in the past three days?? So...

How can we prevent a reoccurrence of the same problems Xxzme? Let me pose a question for you to ponder. If you were limited to making three wiki edits per day, what changes would you make? Where would you concentrate your efforts?

Another separate issue people have pointed out, is that you reveal no information about yourself on your wiki user page. On the page about User:Xxzme we just see more scattergun wiki ideas, some veiled criticism of the way the wiki is run, and some aggressive put-downs of people you've had run-ins with. Why don't you edit that page to let us all know who you are, where you are from, how you got interested in OpenStreetMap? It's about being collaborative. It might help avoid a repeat of your block

-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't MY problem Harry. This how changes at wiki may work.
Explain me please why you cannot install MediaWiki plugin to mark "stable" versions of the pages instead of preventing any change to wiki "If you were limited to making three wiki edits per day".
What I have learned during all that time that we need more competent and dedicated wiki admins at this wiki.
And not who ignores requests for years
without even replying to the issue. I'm not talking about Firefishy. Any of the admins is responsible to fill full requests from community.
If we had AT LEAST ONE extension, then updating wiki would be more seamless during process of update/rewrite. Xxzme (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
We could sure use more wiki admins but it is not a matter of hours to get a few more of them. I have been long enough on wikipedia to dislike their byrocracy. We are a small community that is restricted to work without wikepdia style byrocracy, vandalism bot, spellchecker bots and who knows what else. So all changes need careful thought. Like it or not. RicoZ (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
> We could sure use more wiki admins
I was never mention "more admins"! I said "please why you cannot install MediaWiki plugin", "install this plugin please", "add stable versions" or "can we test this extension please"
I never asked to admins be available 24/7 I asked to fill-full requests that were open for years
It won't we an issue if we ask someone to install plugins for us.
There no doubt that there admins at Wikipedia who could help with open requests at this wiki. Xxzme (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see there is one major problem on this wiki at the moment overshadowing all other issues, and it has nothing to do with translation/semantic extensions. If we talk to the pro wiki administrators over at wikipedia, they might tell us about some awesome power tools, sure. But you know what else they'll tell us about? They'll tell us the biggest problem they alway face is dealing with people who are determined to tip-toe along the edge acceptable behaviour. People who take up a lot of everybody's time, sucking energy out of the community and creating negativity. Luckily we rarely have a problem with those kinds of people on this wiki. It's a small wiki. We're all busy building OpenStreetMap. Are you going to be one of those people?
"this isn't MY problem" .... really? Take a look at yourself. Do as I have suggested. Start by updating your wiki user page.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It is easy for you to speak like this since your native language is English and you demand English namespace (Main:) to be main without realizing that VERY limited pool of translators HAVE TO follow changes in English namespace.
And I think of the translators and maintainers first while merging absolutely unnecessary duplication everywhere. Essential_links_tagging. Special:WhatLinksHere/Essential_links_tagging
Happily you don't BAN me because of using transclusions.
Or because of updating TOO MUCH duplication scattered everywhere at wiki.
Wiped my user page, but I couldn't see what's wrong with attributing people their words.
I think we should have NOT power tools. But VERY basic ones first to create and update translations. How about that?
I want to remind you that we can recover wiki dump at any point.
Anyone in OpenStretMap can revive this wiki but it will have different URL.
Please stop making agruments "someone crazy will ruin wiki with spellchecker bot while being negative" and such this isn't issue right now and never was.
I suggest to start with "stable versions" since it will ease everyone job: translators and content creators AND readers. Xxzme (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you feel good if you would read the weekly OSM news saying "we had to install the stable revision plugin because of Xxzme"? So far we managed without them. Afaik this plugin was not enabled globally in wikipedia and was extremely controversial in some projects. My estimate is - if we had unstable revisions there would be too few users willing to review and patrol the revisions. Unstable revisions should not be the substitute of a sandbox. We have a different cooperation model than wikipedia and mailing lists/forums are much more important in that. Instead of unstable revisions we use drafts in user space, proposals and RFCs in the mailing list. We work much slower than wikipedia - for some subjects we have one or two specialists and if it happens they are on vacations we simply wait some weeks till they return. Discussions are slow, many contributors don't have time to engage for more than a few edits per week. My guess is - if we had unstable revisions there would be too few users willing to review and patrol the revisions.
Find out for yourself how to work around the lack of stable/unstable revisions. If you want to change some page(s) substantially you could
  • announce it on osm-talk to find out if anyone else is working on that or is interested
  • copy the pages to your user space and happily edit until you think you are done
  • tell us when you think you are done
It might be helpful if you would announce an "Xxzme project of the week" on the mailing list so interested people would understand your intentions and don't have to second guess what you are trying to do. RicoZ (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
> So far we managed without them.
Not WE but ONLY YOU who use Main: namespace only.
Should I hop over the hoop too? I could use draft at my user page or at my personal website
Translating and managing at this wiki already overcomplicated
Using hacks at every single step Category:Template with translation strings or Template:Languages by User:Phobie, User:Nazotoko and others or Template:Langcode by User:Verdy p or Template_talk:Description by User:Moresby
Using unnecessary templates like Template:Translation out of sync basicly by imitating very basic function for tranlsations that could be easily done automatically with external software or plugin to this wiki.
and many many others!
I simple don't have time to write fucking message to mailing list to inform users who have no interest in wiki translation and to explain each and one of them why this or that change should be done.
YOU are creating RETARDED BUREAUCRACY. And after that you speak bad about admins at Wikipedia that they have too much bureaucracy? Xxzme (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat surprised that you say you have no time to do something - most people here think that you have too much time to work on the wiki. Maybe the admins can consider your technical suggestions if you leave them time. I am neither admin and as a programmer neither php nor mediawiki fan and can not help there.
I skip using sandboxes and personal namespace because my normal edits usually work without attracting unwanted controversy. Doesn't seem to work for you so try to find another way forward.
I hope you can improve our wiki but this works only if you are willing work like any other user here. Don't ask for special treatment and don't cry foul play at every little disagreement. RicoZ (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

I noticed with "I doubt you are the person to teach me or anyone else with your pathetic 4.5k houses per 7 years of editing".

Please stop, this is not OK Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's wasn't me who stated it, I have no interest in discussing it neither to interact with SomeoneElse. Xxzme (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"It's wasn't me who stated it" - are you claiming that edit was not made by you? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
By ignoring arguments of your opponent and direct questions to you every time [20][21] while making ad hominem comments every 5 messages [22][23] you will hardly set friendly tone in discussion.
If you see reply made by me or with my signature then it safe to assume these are my words. Yes, this is mine, VERY LAST message in that discussion. Xxzme (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

out of date?

Why did you mark Overpass_API/Language_Guide out-of-date? --Brogo (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

page needs major update, linking to the most recent overpass ql page Xxzme (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You weren't asked what you did; you were asked why you did it. What makes you think it needs a "major update"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I placed label according Wiki_organisation#Labels and to mark outdated content.
>What makes you think it needs a "major update"?
I have no concerns about Overpass API/Language Guide or Overpass API/Overpass QL. My POV is now located at single place: User:Xxzme/Overpass_QL(blanked this unmaintained page to avoid broken links or categories).
That's fine, as long as you don't claim this to be the official documentation, you're of course free to do whatever you like in your userspace. Mmd (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If you were following links then you would notice that it is User:Mmd who marked this page as outdated and not me [24]. Xxzme (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't mark the page as "outdated". The page contains no information, which is no longer valid. It just doesn't reflect the current capabilities of Overpass API, which have evolved further since this page was written. I would really recommend to remove "outdated" marker, which Xxzme added. It brings no further useful detail to the table and only confuses people. Mmd (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
> I didn't mark the page as "outdated"
Okay. CTRL+F "are not up-to-date". These are YOUR words and not mine. What does you ambox message should mean then? You can replace page contents by redirecting to real page: #REDIRECT[[Current page]]
> The page contains no information, which is no longer valid. It just doesn't reflect the current capabilities of Overpass API
In other words it is outdated? "Out of date; not the latest one." Xxzme (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather call this incomplete, really. Take a look at the explanation given for the "outdated" box: The information is no longer correct, or no longer has relevance. - that both doesn't apply in this case. The information is still correct and it is still relevant. The only issue is that the page doesn't cover some new topics. So I'd call this: the page is not up-to-date (=it lacks some more recent developments). However, whatever you read on the page itself is not out of date. The current stuff would be more or less identical, even if we added all the new available feature.
Bottom line: it's just incomplete :) Mmd (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, current {{OutOfDate}} is confusing, we need more labels to mark issues at page more precisely. Wikipedians have some usefull boxes: Wiki_organisation#Per_contents, but they are not present at this wiki ATM. Xxzme (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, I noticed you were trying to add that to the OSM Wiki, but for some reason that doesn't seem work. Once it is available, it should really be added to the Language Guide Wiki page. Mmd (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominatim/Installation page

According to you moved the nominatim installation page. There will be links out there pointing to - right now, people will just see a blank page. These sort of actions without discussion make OpenStreetMap look incompetent as a project. --SomeoneElse (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm something went wrong with Nominatim/Installation it should contain stub marker and at least two links Nominatim/Installation on CentOS and Nominatim/Installation on Debian or Ubuntu. Xxzme (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said, this page was present but it had different/wrong title. I'm not aware of Special:Contributions/Datendelphin edits at all.
I'm not responsible for User:Datendelphin actions or his/her intentions. Xxzme (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest to answer questions from you. Xxzme (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal templates and categories

I see that you have made extensive edits to the structure of the proposal template and categories. You edited the Proposal Page template several times in a row, which causes all pages that use the template (which is quite a lot) to be rerendered, several times. It is better to first make a draft page (in your own user namespace), set up test pages for it (also in your own user namespace), and when you are happy with the result, copy over its contents. It may also be advisable to ask feedback about your draft before applying your changes to the live templates and categories. Your change is quite drastic and sudden. —M!dgard [ talk ] 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You NEVER informed me about your changes with Template:Proposed features category. [25].
You NEVER used your personal namespace during these edits CTRL+F "Template:Proposed features category"
And yet you here to DEMAND DOUBLE WORK from me? Xxzme (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I want to remind you who is the latest author of category structure which was explained at Proposal_process#Proposal_list
Its not you. Xxzme (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I want to remind you number of edits you did to Template:Proposal Page
Just 1 edit. Xxzme (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The tone of this response is unnecessarily argumentative, angry and aggressive. M!dgard used very reasonable calm language, and you respond like this? -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you consider M!dgard or my time time investments during this request?
I don't see any politeness in asking someone to make work while not executing your own requests to some person.
Tone of the message doesn't matter, M!dgard actions are selfish.
Again, I absolutely can use calm tone and verbose sentences. But again, it will take even more time from me. Xxzme (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Editing the category description pages doesn't require any rerendering of pages apart from those themselves. Template:Proposed features category was used on only 10 pages (category description pages) or so, times 3 for my edits *after* including them, means 30 rerenderings or so, which does not put too much load on the server. Template:Proposed feature is used on 1275 pages, times 5 for all your latest edits, means 6375 rerenderings. And please don't pick on the numbers if they're not 100% accurate, I only mean them as an indication of the order of magnitude we're talking about.
I considered my changes to the category pages as not requiring feedback, as they were not changing the layout of the categories themselves. They were merely unifying the description pages of the categories.
I don't demand anything, I give you advice. Please keep your cool.
Yes, just one edit, which is good! More edits causes more stress on the servers, which is bad! I also fail to see the point in reminding me that I have made 1 edit to that page. If a page is all right, what am I supposed to do to it? Make it worse? It seems you are playing ad hominem, and claiming all credit for the page. I have done other work on the wiki, I have mapped, I have finished translating iD into my language, I have fixed issues in iD, I have done other things for OSM and I don't want to make an exhaustive list here, so there really is no point in telling me what I have done on one particular page in one particular piece of our great project. Please keep on topic. —M!dgard [ talk ] 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes your changes affect only 10 pages, because you did single minor edit to main temaplte
I sure what I'm doing.
Numbers are unnecessary, every one could see them using Special:WhatLinksHere.
I'm not the only one who did edits that add "more stress on the servers", but you are contacting only me. Or asking me to make edits in my user namespace. What wrong them me? Xxzme (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, apparently you're not so sure since you have to make several successive edits to the same sections.
So what???
If you have to edit 20 pages you have to edit 20 pages.
If you have to edit in 3 stages, you will make edits in 3 stages.
Your "advices" while doing minor fixes at random pages at this wiki are questionable at very least. Xxzme (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"Numbers are unnecessary, every one could see them using Special:WhatLinksHere." All those hyperlinks in an attempt to back up your statements are unnecessary, too.
Why I only contact you? Because this is the first major edit to pages I am "watching". I received 14 email notifications about your actions.
I'm so sorry you haven't contacted me before your changes
To category structure I currently maintain and I did before and successfully without ANY "advice" from you.
This is not meant as an insult, but continuing to respond as aggressively as you are, is likely to get you banned. —M!dgard [ talk ] 11:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
When you request other person his/her time to perform some task, you usually use words like "Please", "Could you explain please" and such
Alternately person could use short sentences and questionable form "Could you do this?" BUT NOT "Do this and this and this and report it me".
I don't see any politeness in your actions. Xxzme (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
In no way I meant that you should report to me what you are doing, and if my message was unsufficiently clear in conveying that nuance, I want to apologize. English is not my first language.
Well it isn't my first language too, but in general English speakers use pattern mentioned by me.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your tone. Then overreation from my side was indeed inappropriate. Xxzme (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
What I did mean was that if you do such edits, you could consider asking for community input on the talk page, and for large enough things (which admittedly I deem this particular change not to be) on the mailing list. My changes were not relevant enough to consult anyone. OpenStreetMap is a community project and so is its wiki. That's not to say I don't make mistakes in community interactions. I am not the perfect example of being able to collaborate. But when I am contacted by someone or I contact someone myself, I keep myself to always try to be polite, consider the arguments of the other party, and evaluate my own point of view. By just rambling on about how insignificant I am, you are not going to succeed in changing my or anyone else's point of view.
I'm community too! Again you never asked me (an author of last changes with you category template.
Your changes were unexpected and unintended and my changes are bare reaction to confusing content in Category:Proposed features, Category:Proposals_admin and Category:Proposals after your edits and edits of other users. Xxzme (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I do have experience with MediaWiki's, not only this one but also Wikipedia and its sisters, and private wiki's.
So I'm. Xxzme (talk)
You continue to play ad hominem. You continue to view everyone in a strict hierarchy, with yourself ranked quite high and definitely above me. I will not tolerate that any more, and I will leave this unproductive conversation and do some useful stuff. —M!dgard [ talk ] 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no other option but to PULL meaningful request from you. Your argument "It is affects multiple/many page" wasn't enough.
Yes computers have to do computers job. How this is problem? Xxzme (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Your tone has improved considerably and I am willing participate in this discussion again.
Yes, you are a member of the community too. I did not realise that you may have been startled by my edits. I do not remember exactly what I did back then.
The categories you mention are indeed very confusing, I didn't even know about them until now. If you'd like, you can outline the scheme you have in mind for the categories and templates, and we (you, I and other interested members of the community) can discuss it. I would be happy to help you execute it. —M!dgard [ talk ] 12:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have just been banned indefinitely. I am sorry, I believe you have just shown that you can communicate if you want to. —M!dgard [ talk ] 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed he has been blocked (see below). The beginning of this discussion was a fine example Xxzme's typical discussion style. I congratulate you on managing to calm him down a little bit on this occasion, but you'll have noticed it was hard work. He has been blocked on the basis of his behaviour across many different discussions and wiki edits, with no single case in isolation being sufficient to justify a block. As a wiki admin, I can't stand by and allow Xxzme to inflict this kind of "death by a thousand cuts". I hope the matter is resolved, and that there's still enough good people around willing to tidy up. -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the ban

In the discussion above #Welcome back we talked about how you might avoid getting banned again. I suggested, why don't you edit your user page to let us all know who you are, where you are from, how you got interested in OpenStreetMap? It's about being collaborative. But I see you haven't done that. I tried to discuss the issue of your high editing rate, and the difficulty of other users keeping up with you, but you seemed to want to deflect discussion, impatiently suggesting that wiki admins need to install various extensions to help with translation. That is not addressing the issue and serves to illustrate some sort of self-righteous delusion you operate under.

Certainly it's a strange way for somebody to behave, when you come to a project which is all about collaboration and generosity of spirit in helping the world with free access to maps, and you fail so spectacularly at working with others in a friendly way. Usually I find community issues can be settled by empathising with the other party a little bit, but I find it really hard to empathise with you or understand what's going on in your head.

So this is all very unusual, but... All said and done, your behaviour is not improving. It very much looks like we will need to repeat the ban on your wiki account.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your link "being collaborative" is not approved by OpenStreetMap community.
You are the only/main contributor to Community Code of Conduct (Draft)
TITLE STATES (DRAFT) and not "Approved by everyone in OpenStreetMap"
Harry Wood opinion != OpenStreetMap consensus
I don't have to present myself at my user page Wiki_guidelines.
It is my will not to do so. My close friends are know me without presenting myself to anyone. I'm not public person.
Well all you do is putting your name and status of you in OSM to question. Xxzme (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a possible way you could have responded to this which might have given me more reason to hold off on blocking. ...but that wasn't it.
You could have promised to try to be more friendly. You could have followed my advice and put something about yourself on your user page, or you could have politely explained that, while you understand the benefits in creating a friendly and collaborative wiki environment, you didn't want to share any personal information. But no. All we get is yet another angry aggressive response.
You are hereby blocked from the openstreetmap wiki with the reason "extremely high editing rate with controversial/disputed edits. Aggressive unfriendly communication style. Total failure to collaborate". In addition to that, see reasoning given for the previous block: #Blocked for 3 months, all of which still stands. We have seen no improvement.
To discuss this ban further, you may make use of the talk mailing list, the forum, or other contact channels. Note however that moderation and banning policies are in place on all OpenStreetMap communication channels, and the existence and reasoning of this wiki block may be used as evidence for more rapid ban on another channel. Please try to be more friendly if you use these other OpenStreetMap channels.
Sorry it didn't work out.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this a 3 month ban? If so, do take attention as it ends tomorrow. ViriatoLusitano Flag of Portugal Portugal (Talk | Contribs) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No, this time it's permanent. --Zverik (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)