User talk:EzekielT

overpass turbo versions

Hi. Thanks for updating the overpass turbo wiki page. I have a question about the versions numbers you added (for example currently it shows Version: 12.93 in the info box). Where do these version numbers come from? Cheers, Martin -- Tyr (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tyr:: You're the brilliant developer of overpass turbo, aren't you? I'm so glad you asked. 12.93 may seem random, but in this case it's not :). I guess I should've discussed it first, but since there was no official version number, I halved the digits of the 1,293 commits into 12.93 for convenience and update references. What do you think of my idea? Considering you maintain the project, your opinion is pretty much official. Thanks :)! — EzekielT (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, for the late answer.

Ok, I see. But is it really necessary to have version numbers for the project? Because, if it really was, the I could "officially" version the code, so you don't have to invent other numbers. The "number" of commits can be a bit misleading number btw, since not every commit on the github repository is actually code that is in the "released" master branch. What do you think?

-- Tyr (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

   But is it really necessary to have version numbers for the project?

Maybe for referencing improvements, updates, new features added, etc.?

   The "number" of commits can be a bit misleading number btw

Then maybe we should exclude failed and pending commits? There are a total of 70 failed commits and 3 pending commits, so 1,297 - 73 = 1,224 -> 12.24? What do you think :)? Or maybe you can officially version the code, if you want? — EzekielT (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me getting involved in this discussion. But as I'm one of the creators of the Software infobox template, I'd like to clarify the following:

• There is no requirement that the version number follows a particular format. For example, JOSM's version is simply listed as "14066".
• The parameter can (and should) be omitted if the software has no official version number. It is not required for the template to function.

--Tordanik 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Labelling pages for deletions

Please stop labelling pages of abandoned proposals for deletions (e.g. Proposed_features/Marked_trail). Even unsuccessful proposals serve as a historical record of the community's decision making process; they may be archived, but should usually not be deleted. Their content should still be searchable. However, if you let delete these pages, their content will be gone. Please revert your changes. --Nakaner (talk)

Archived them instead. Thanks :)! — EzekielT (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Despite the "historical" arguement, a lot of the pages that had deletion tags that where it reverted didnt have any content, or if it did the content had no historical value. That's one of the problems with blanket statements like "history must saved." A lot of pages get clumped into the "historically useful" category that shouldn't, because its way to broad of qualifier of what had value and is to up to interpretation. Next time, if a delete tag is added to a page, a better option might be to let the administrator that handles deleting pages decide. Out of all the pages I added the tag to, 99% of them ended up getting deleted. including some that people were outrage over "because history." So, clearly it was much to do about nothing in the end and the pages where worth deleting. Or else the administrator would have just restored them. In summary, next time let the people who's job it is to decide these things decide these things, because your probably wrong. Its not like I didnt think it through properly with each page ahead of time either. Even if I hadn't though, outrage and reverts are never good way to deal with things you disagree with. It usually never goes in the favor of the person doing it. Maybe in the short-term, but not in the long-term. For example look at where Verdy_P is now, despite all his insistence that he was right, "winning" arguments on a few pages, and not respecting the decisions of the admins. It clearly didnt work out for him. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Just two comments @Adamant1 - the wiki admins are unpaid volunteers as you are, they have no "job". Second, there is no calculation for you statistical claims. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Polarbear w:, aaww only two?

The admins might be unpaid volunteers, but I still assume they know more then we do (or at least more then I do) about administrative tasks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be admins and we would. That's the important thing, bucko.

Really? How do you know I didn't compare the amount of reverts on the pages that had the delete tag to the amount of pages that where actually deleted? Hhhhmmm? I'm not saying I did, but I could have. So there.

Even if I'm off by a few percentage points or if its like 50/50 for that matter, it still wouldn't warrant the mob of angry hand ringing. Also, I was the one that went through the pages originally and I checked them all to make sure they qualified for the tag, or I wouldn't have put it there in the first place. Everyone acted like I just did it randomly though to run rick-shod over the wiki or something. I'm sure they didn't actually check the pages themselves though to see if I was even wrong, because people with knee jerk reactions don't tend to do proper review like that. I know Verdy_P didn't. Given all that, realistically all of them would have gotten deleted if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog. I can almost guarantee you know one would have missed those pages if they had been deleted. Let alone even notice they had been deleted.

Anyway, arguing with people on the wiki is so 2017/18. Yawn. So I'm out. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ValueDescription revert

Hi EzekielT, could you clarify why you reverted? Which items have caused errors, and how many of theme were there? Every change to the ValueDescription template places a big stress on the server, so lets try to minimize changes if the issue only affects a small subset of items that can be easily fixed. Thx! --Yurik (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! The errors occurred for keys and tags created after Yurikbot stopped adding items. Since the bot hadn't added items for them, the template glitched. The language bar's links were malfunctioning and unlinked, making it impossible to reach other languages from the tag/key's page, and the tag's name was missing from the key/value description box...

Best Regards,

EzekielT (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue was due to the module not adding "type" and "templatename" parameters when calling the {{Description}} template. I have fixed it and undid your undo. Please let me know if you spot any issues - best place is usually the talk page of the template, or just ping me on my talk page - I usually reply very fast. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Landcover and vegetation

Hi, noticed your interest in plants, I am cooking up something regarding landcover and vegetation : User:RicoZ/Landcover, vegetation, soil and geology. RicoZ (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ: Very interesting... Admittedly for now I've kind of skimmed over it, since it's getting pretty late here. I'll look at it more tomorrow (err, tomorrow's started already... I mean later :D). Thanks :)! — EzekielT (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Whenever you have time. I need people knowing enough to point me to glaring errors and do a little reality check. Also should extend to geology and soil horizon but unfortunately I am not expert on everything under the sun.

Lately I was thinking it might be better to split the proposal to be into even more parts; the landcover and the vegetation level parts separately? RicoZ (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Historic artifact template

This is in regards to "Valencia Rendering Rules." Rules about how to do things in software that supports OSM is no more a "historic artifact in the history of OpenStreetMap" then something like what button does what in OsmAnd is. The software itself might be, which should have a general page talking about its historical significance to OpenStreetMap, but the specific details of the function of software is irrelevant. "Polygon (Color=#DCDCDC)" has zero to do with OpenStreetMap or its history. Please see and participate in the forum discussion about what pages and proposals should be delete-able here https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=736510. Also see the comment by Lyx on the bottom of his talk page about this subject including the last part about how general, none specific statements as reasons to revert deletion proposals aren't sufficient. Also, read the bottom of comment of #9 by Tigerfall on the forum about this same subject. I'll give you a few days to do that and respond in the forum. Then I am going to revert you on the Valencia Rendering Rules page and the others you reverted me on. Since you clearly didn't follow the proper procedures for reversion or bother to participate in the discussion about it before hand. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:: Sorry, I guess I went on a mass reversion spree, reverting you, Nakaner, Mateusz Konieczny, RicoZ, Dieterdreist and even myself without much thought. I guess I was so committed to not taking sides that I didn’t even bother to think out what I was doing. I think it started when people (namely Mateusz and Dieterdreist, but Nakaner a while back too) were complaining that I was deleting proposals, so my reaction? Revert Adamant1 and “restore history” to keep the balance and stay on their good side, while also deleting proposals to stay on Adamant1’s good side, so I wouldn’t get a severe negative reaction from either side. It turns out it completely failed; it was a terrible idea, and I’m sorry for any inconvenience I caused. Admittedly I have some other reasons behind my recent edits though, like how I believe we should get rid of pointless or useless ancient proposals, but keep the old software stuff for future reference, e.g. if someone wants to know how Kosmos works, etc. I also should have participated in the discussion before haphazardly reverting over and over again. But now, all I can say is that I’m sorry, and that what I did was wrong...

Best Regards,

EzekielT (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, no worries. It can be easy to get carried away and I can understand wanting to satisfy everyone, but satisfying knowone. It happens to me also sometimes. At least your heart was in the right place. You can still participate in the discussion at least. The more people contribute it the better. -- Adamant1

@Adamant1: Thanks for that, I appreciate it :)... I think I've thought up some interesting alternatives that all avoid leaving things how they are now (a confusing mess) or deleting them (which angers certain people). They'll be good compromises :). I plan to discuss them at the forum this week. — EzekielT (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for improving the spelling on my talk page. I'm horrible with names. I should probably double check from now on to make sure I get them right. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No edit wars, please

I noticed that you are involved in a series of reverts and counter-reverts in the Wiki. This seems to be an indication that communication has broken down. Please stop this, it is a waste of time. Instead, use the talk page of the Wiki pages that you disagree about why you think a specific edit or content has merit, and listen to what others are saying. That way the readers see the arguments from all sides and can form their own opinion, even if you can only agree to disagree. --Lyx (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion proposal voting

Hey there. Hope your enjoying your vacation from the wiki ;) If you could me a big favor though and go vote for the deletion proposal id really appreciate it. Id like you to vote on it since you were involved in its creation. Thanks. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap:Deletion_policy --Adamant1 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the vacation was certainly refreshing :)! I plan to get back to it and take another break soon. I voted abstain (at least for now) and I’ve asked Tigerfell if we can ping the opiners and participants in the deletion war to come vote. — EzekielT (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's good. Breaks are always nice. I have to do that myself sometimes. I'll usually go off and map some obscure place in the woods for awhile until my head is clear. People on here can really drive me up the wall sometimes. I agree with you that the guidelines are a little complicated. I think Tigerfell did the best he could though considering know one really participated in drafting it. Hopefully after the vote it can be simplified some though and I still think it's better than the alternative of arguing etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:: Thanks, I agree with everything you said ;), although to be fair there were the 4 of us + a few others, and there started to be more participants after I’d left (namely Warin61 and the others). I’m not 100% sure if that was enough people though. I agree that Tigerfell seems to have done the best they could; addressing multiple people’s requests like that isn’t easy.

About Tigerfell... Nakaner accused Tigerfell of sockpuppetry today. — EzekielT (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

True. I think Tigerfell handled it well though. Way better then I would. I could barely keep up with the forum post about it, let alone would I be able to manage the rest. The accusation of sockpuppetry by Nakaner is unfortunate, but not surprising all things considered. Its ironic that he/she stayed out of it until now and only came in to throw around accusations. From my own experience, there's quit of a accusations against people's intent and knowledge based on how they have been a member or how many edits they have. It's pretty a lame thing to attack someone for in my opinion. I'm currently getting berated on the leisure=park discussion page for asking a question about beaches by a user that's been here for 10 years because I've only been a member for 2. Such is life. Anyway, it's also pretty lame of Nakaner to lie about my deletion requests to, not to mention say how felt about things. I'll probably leave him/her a scolding messages for it. He/she did make a few good points though, but it's to bad they didn't come up sooner. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I laid it into Nakaner about it. I probably could have been a little nicer, but I'm pretty sick this kind of thing. I guess we'll see how it goes now. Ten bucks says Mateusz Konieczny jumps on me for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, I don’t think anyone will jump on you for it. Even Nakaner himself hasn’t responded ;), despite how hostile the message is. Pretty impressive. Shows how rock solid he is ;). And yes, I know about the park thing. I stalk... err, view the contribs of nearly everyone I encounter here ;). It seems pretty heated, by the way. If you two would like to take a truly refreshing break, LocalWiki is a good place to contribute to. Do you know it? People are much more laid back there compared to OSM and Wikipedia (yes, I know you contribute there too. Like I said, I stalk... err, view your contribs) and rarely revert you (partially because there’s less rules). Also, I just noticed we both started out on OpenStreetMap during the same day, I started on September 7, 2014 and you started on September 7, 2016! Coincidence, anyone? Also, more on topic, today is the last day of voting. Looks like the deletion proposal will be rejected... I’m letting everyone know now, this is an announcement, that I’m planning to be the one who does the post-vote cleanup. I think I have time to close it up at around 0:00 ET (where I live). Whereas Tigerfell is in Europe and shouldn’t be able to make edits until around 11:00 UTC (past midnight). The voting closes today, April 27. — EzekielT (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I just did the post-voting cleanup, exactly on time, as I said I would, at 0:00 ET (4:00 UTC). The deletion policy has been rejected with 6 yes, 15 no, and 9 abstain. I would suggest everyone to discuss this result at Talk:Wiki before performing reversions. — EzekielT (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess your right. That figures. It's always easier to take cheap shots at people in a neutral place where they can't defend themselves like in a voting comment, then it do it on in home turf where a possible scrum can happen. Stevea did the same thing. It's either that he's rock solid, or it's cowardice. Rock solid people usually face the storm head on. Instead of hiding in their cellars with a bottle of cheap wine and an electric blanket when the slightest rain happens. To each his own I though I guess. According to Stevea I'm on thin ice with the DWG, who talks a bunch of smack about me behind my back. At least Stevea had the guts to go at me to my face though. He's way more rock solid for it then Nakaner. Maybe Nakaner just isn't engaging me so I won't be able to claim he was involved in it later. Although, if the end game of these people is taking a bunch of side shots at me every chance they get, like they have been, until I eventually explode and get banned it hasn't been very successful so far. Who knows though. Maybe the wheels are turning behind the scenes and the hammer will drop any moment. It could happen. I think they are just scared of change and progress. Which we represent. This is their way of acting out against it. "Get those damn kids off my lawn!!" they all yell. To which I yell back, "get your damn lawn off my kids!!." All's fair in love and edit wars right? People take this way to seriously. Sometimes I act a little brazen or whatever just to counteract it. That's what usually happens in authoritarian systems. The creative, eclectic types go to far one way and then the crack downs began, but it's always a slow erosion at first through by petty things randomly said on proposal pages. Rome totally wouldn't have fallen if it wasn't for the single deletionist user deletionist juliusant1 wikicaesar or some such.

Figures you lurk around. I do that sometimes to. I've probably visited the webpages, social media accounts, etc etc of most of the main players around here. It really helped me to have empathy for them and why they do this. Especially Mateusz Konieczny. I've really warmed up to him more since I visited his website. We're all humans!! You hear me Nakanar you cave dwelling.......wait, what was I saying? Oh yeah, yeah the thing with Stevea got pretty heated. Hopefully it chilled out now that the DWG got contacted from his fake vandalism kerfuffle epically failed. It was totally worth it just for this line if nothing else "please, OSM community, don't leave me twisting in the wind alone wondering where all the voices of sanity are, chime in, please" Hahahahaha, classic. Like a B movie knock off of a Shakespearean play or something. You can almost hear the completely fake desperation in his voice. Anyway, yeah I'm on Wikipedia also. I use to do more stuff there but I got in a pretty good argument with some moron over Christian albums a few years ago. So I decided to take a break. Which is actually what led me to OSM originally. Then I just stepped in it here to. Go figure. "shrug." I still contribute to Wikivoyage and Wikidata when I can. Although lately I haven't had time. They are definitely a lot hostile then the main Wikipedia cite. I haven't tried Localwiki. I'll have to check them out. I did notice a few times that they have things Wikipedia doesn't though, but then they aren't integrated into OSM or OSM apps at all. And OSM is at the core of my dark, bitter, jaded heart. So, everything must flow forth from it, like...I don't know...Something that flow's from something...Actually, I've been trying to do Mappillary more. No interacting with people online and it gives me an excuse to go outside. It integrates with OSM well to. I'm sort of obsessed with power poles lately. So I've been using Mappillary to help get the reference numbers for them. I'll have to see what your up to on Wikipedia/Localwiki. I assume you use the same screen name for both of them? I wish Wiki's had a way to follow people. Maybe they do and I just missed it.

It's really weird we registered on the same day. There's no coincidences. I guess the proposal went as well as can be expected. It's interesting so many people abstained. I'm semi encouraged by it. There's probably some good things that can be taken from the current proposal and integrated into something new and more refined. It was a needed conversation also. I feel like some good discussion on the talk mailing list came from it. I don't think the new momentum about getting the problems search dealt with would happened otherwise. So, overall I think it was positive. Even if I had to burn a little social capital in the process. Unfortunately, that's the cost of progress sometimes. Like I told Stevea, if I ever do get banned at least some good came out of it and I left my mark on the project. In the meantime though, "haters, gonna hate."

Man, I was all over the map on that one. My mom use to say, lose lips sink ships. I was never good at listen to her. Especially on that obviously. if my mouth runs to much and I get jettisoned from the project for it, so be it. I can always chew around the edges by contributing to one of the side projects or something if nothing else. Or like, just go outside, exercise, and get a social life. But who want's to do those things these days? Not me. Yuck. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Notifying users involved in deletion dispute

Hi, I suggest that we do not ping the people, but drop a message on the talk pages of people, I have not already talked to via other official channels. How about this draft of a message? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerfell:: I've dropped messages (based on your draft) for all of the 17 people who were involved in the deletion war but hadn't voted yet, plus the 2 admins you mentioned in March. So far only one of them has voted (MikeN). Just for reference, there are 21 users involved in the deletion war, 5 of which have voted now. So 16 are left. — EzekielT (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Feature proposal for amenity=loading_dock?

Hi, I think tag amenity=loading_dock deserves a feature proposal in order for it to be supported massively by editors/renderers. As of today tag is documented, well used. Since you've been one of the major contributor to this wiki page, do you plan to launch something (i.e. create a Feature proposal page) to make it approved? I'm not sure to be able to handle the whole process. --LeTopographeFou (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI I had iD Editor add a preset for it a while back here. So its already getting adopted. Which is all the more reason to do a proposal for it. I'd like to it rendered in the main style someday. It would definitely help if there was a successful proposal for it to go with the support in iD Editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to join my version of drinks shop proposal

Hello EzekielT, I noticed that you drafted a juice bar proposal Proposed features/Juice bar two years ago, wasn't finished. I recently do a new proposal amenity=drinks which I would like to introduce a new tag which is compatible for more type of shops. The proposal is in voting stage, hope you could vote for this and leave some comments. Thanks. --tntchn ^talk 05:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:Amenity Editor 0.92-SNAPSHOT.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)