User talk:RM87
Edits on Spam page
Dear RM87,
I'm asking you regarding your last edit to Spam wikipage, the one described as remove users that are gone and entries to "meaningless" diary posts. Diff:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Spam&diff=1081893&oldid=1081890
You removed the entries to accounts which still exist and which only posted something like Boston bombing, there I was or I have absolutely no clue what I'm doing here and then remained inactive, without committing any edits. It's certain these were some (maybe failed) tests to make some SEO bullshit activity. Why did you remove them from the list in Spam? These rubbish accounts should stay there until they're purged by admins.
With regards, --Jedrzej Pelka (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I did remove the entries that might have not been SEO. These diary entries were not the usual entries nor did these bear very useful information, but are we going to delete everything that we do not like because we do not understand it?
The more questionable entries we add to this list the longer it will take someone to review the list. If it takes too much time then eventually no-one wants to deal with the spam and this spam list is already being reviewed very infrequently by admins.
My thoughts about these diary entries: 'Boston bombing, there I was' - an odd one indeed, but I doubt it has something to do with SEO. Do a google search for username inthenickoftime4 . 'Hello my friends I am going out of my state to Boston!!!' - Could be a legit user, could be a SEO test, could be anything. Do we have to label it as spam if we can not understand it? 'I have absolutely no clue what I'm doing here' - Feels more like a student who has no idea what he is supposed to do in the class. 'Ｉam here!' - only the username points to seo, but do we forbid the users to use their business names as usernames?
It's not a big secret that there is a 'small' problem with people and bots spamming, but we should also not overreact and treat every questionable diary post as a spam.
Statistics tend to lie, so the following numbers do vary greatly depending on date/time etc... Just based on random consequent 1000 users (One day old accounts):
- 10% do some edits or upload a trace,
- 10% post spam with links in user description,
- <1% post spam in user description but without a link,
- 0 users posted something useful in their user description (understandable for new accounts(.
- 0.something % users post diary entries. Of these only few percent are spam.
- ~80% do nothing or get caught in spam filters.
Regards,
RM87 23:56, 10 September 2014 (GMT+3)
File:Mobile communications mast.JPG
Hi RM87, thank you for File:Mobile communications mast.JPG and the description and source info. But could you please also add a license to enable others to use this picture? Thank you! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Added --RM87 17:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Attribution
Hello! And sorry for bothering you, but description of file you uploaded need to be improved.
You have uploaded file which is licensed as requiring attribution. But right now attribution is not specified properly.
Please, ask for help if something is confusing or unclear in this message.
Please, fix that problem with this uploads - note that images with unclear licensing situation may be deleted.
Attribution may be missing completely or just be specified in nonstandard way, in either case it needs to be improved. Note that using CC-BY files without specifying attribution is a copyright violation, which is often unethical and unwanted. So clearly specifying required attribution is needed if license which makes attribution mandatory was used.
If it is applying to your own work which not based on work by others - then you can select own user name or some other preferred attribution or even change license to for example {{CC0-self}}
For files which are solely your own work: ensure that it is clearly stated at file page that you created image/took the photo/etc
For works by others - please ensure that there is link to the original source which confirms license and that you used proper attribution, or that source is clearly stated in some other way. This applies when you took screeshot, made map from OSM data and so on.
Especially for old OSM-baded maps, made from data before license change on 12 September 2012 you should use "map data © OpenStreetMap contributors" as at least part of attribution
For old OSM Carto maps, which predate license change on 12 September 2012 you can use a special template {{OSM Carto screenshot||old_license}}
Note: Maybe the current license on this file is wrong and a different one should be used! Wiki:Media file license chart may be helpful. If unsure, ask on Talk:Wiki
