Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Michaelfiles

Belgium Historical Markers

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

I'am not here to give lesson, I'm trying to understand where this stubbornness from some people comes from wanting to use only English

In fact my problem is that I'm looking for where it is written (in a rule or otherwise) that English is the language we are "forced" to use in WM
Do not get me wrong, I'm not against English, I even strongly agree that it takes an explanation / description in this language for understanding ==> In Description : ENGLISH MUST also be present B)

And in fact, I did not find anything except (see topic above) in "Waymarking FAQ", and that I interpret as a will / wish of Groundspeak that we do not forget the locals peoples/Language. I may be wrong:unsure:
 

For your comments in "Peer Review" 
Ok for .3 : "Or" would be more adequate than "Of"
For .2 : Whereas my english is not famous:(, "preferably" (more in the sense of a wish) does not mean "Must" ???==> we agree also a photo of the monument without the person or GPS
Do not get me wrong, I'm not angry. Usually a good open discussion gets things done:D
Best Regards, Michael

Now I see that you have not understood the problem at all.

You are fighting against opinions that are pure imagination, while totally ignoring the real problem.

How many people want you to use only English, as you say? Let's count: oh, exactly Zero. Indeed, it's not easy to find the reasons for the opinion of no one.

I have not checked all 1113 categories, but I doubt that there is one that requires English alone. At least, I have never seen one.

We have two cases: International categories and local ones.

A number of international categories require an English translation, but none forbid local languages. This has one reason. All we can assume is, that the officers do understand English. If the submission is not translated by the waymarker, the officer has to do it and this takes too much time for large categories. As a plus, foreign tourists can also benefit from the English text in the waymark when it is part of the description.

For local categories we can assume that the officers can read the local languages. So there is no real need to require an English version for the approval process. But there are many waymarkers travelling around the world who might want to participate in the category. When you require the local language, you say that you are not interested in their participation.

Your solution is to additionally require an English version. This is no solution, this makes thing even worse, because you additionally handicap locals without knowledge of English.

You have found one local category that requires French as primary language. But there are dozens of local categories that have no such requirements, because it is not necessary. Of course, we do not want to have to evaluate a submission in Russian or Chinese for a local category in western Europe, so I think it makes sense to require either English or the local language, no question. But not both!

The respective categories for France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands and Norway have no language requirements at all, they work well. The Austrian and Swiss category neither, but mentions that bilingual entries are highly welcome.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ok

After accepting or not, I propose to do the following change in description

[ENG] A description in the official languages of the region is desirable, but not required
[FR] Une description dans la langue officielle de la Région est souhaitable mais pas obligatoire
[DE] Eine Beschreibung in der offiziellen Sprachen der Region ist wünschenswert, aber nicht erforderlich
[NL] Een beschrijving in de officiële talen van de regio is wenselijk, maar niet verplicht

And in Instructions for logging 
[ENG] Take one or more personally-obtained photos of the monument, or a very detailed description of your visit may be substituted for a photo. 
[FR] Prenez une ou plusieurs photos personnelles du monument, ou une description très détaillée de votre visite peut se substituée à une photo.
[NL] Neem een of meer persoonlijk verkregen foto's van het monument, of een zeer gedetailleerde beschrijving van uw bezoek kan in de plaats komen van een foto.
[DE] Mach ein oder mehreren persönliches Bilden von dem Monument, Oder eine sehr detaillierte Beschreibung Ihres Besuchs kann ein Foto ersetzen. 

Hoping that this is going in the right direction
:D;)

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

Ok

After accepting or not, I propose to do the following change in description

[ENG] A description in the official languages of the region is desirable, but not required
[FR] Une description dans la langue officielle de la Région est souhaitable mais pas obligatoire
[DE] Eine Beschreibung in der offiziellen Sprachen der Region ist wünschenswert, aber nicht erforderlich
[NL] Een beschrijving in de officiële talen van de regio is wenselijk, maar niet verplicht

And in Instructions for logging 
[ENG] Take one or more personally-obtained photos of the monument, or a very detailed description of your visit may be substituted for a photo. 
[FR] Prenez une ou plusieurs photos personnelles du monument, ou une description très détaillée de votre visite peut se substituée à une photo.
[NL] Neem een of meer persoonlijk verkregen foto's van het monument, of een zeer gedetailleerde beschrijving van uw bezoek kan in de plaats komen van een foto.
[DE] Mach ein oder mehreren persönliches Bilden von dem Monument, Oder eine sehr detaillierte Beschreibung Ihres Besuchs kann ein Foto ersetzen. 

Hoping that this is going in the right direction
:D;)

Merci beaucoup !

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, I don't normally follow the Forums (unless invited), too busy Waymarking the categories already out there.

While I can't imagine getting to Belgium until I retire (10 years time maybe), as a mono-linguist, I appreciate the proposed changes to the requirements, (to not be so rigid with the very local dialect/language strict requirement).

Comparing the text of various languages (out of curiosity, or need) is totally different to having to write in a language that you aren't familiar with

"Th qck brwn fx jmps vr th lz dg", may be understood, but it does NOT mean that it is correct, and that is what many Translators ending up looking like. All the best with the Category, and I will head on back to the Group Vote page to amend my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

Thx

That's it, the changes have been madeB)
Another question, How to change the icon by another, like this from Deutsche Denkmallisten

 

This discussion and Razalas made a proposal for your category, you just need to validate

Share this post


Link to post

In the category description, the dropbox section does not work for me.  This problem was mentioned by other waymarkers in the peer review. I think that the category description should include URLs for direct connection to the databases.

Edited by elyob

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, elyob said:

In the category description, the dropbox section does not work for me.  This problem was mentioned by other waymarkers in the peer review. I think that the category description should include URLs for direct connection to the databases.

I'm trying to fix it ==> New table in place from link to a file Dropbox
For Dropbox, I do not know how, or you tried to access
But I know that some employer blocks the access (this is the case right at my)

Share this post


Link to post

Hi

Ask you for your opinion:rolleyes:

On my catégorie ( link ) i have made restriction for posting a new WM

Waymarks corresponding to this category will not be validated: World Heritage Sites & War (History)
Because I consider, that a monument or a site that is part of the UNESCO heritage and War Site (Where people fought for values of freedom and peace) has a higher value than the others, must be in her own dedicated Catégorie

Do you find this unfair ? please argument it

Share this post


Link to post

To open the argument, I had created a waymark...and now regret doing so.

 

Edited by elyob

Share this post


Link to post

Why make this kind of restriction, a monument listed in Unesco is primarily a national monument, built by the inhabitants of this country so first a national pride for a country, which is shared later with the rest of the planet, so why take away this pride from a people?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

I respect your WM, I think that F & M had an oversight, accepting your WM
Would be nice of you to remove your WM to respect the instructions

Please unapprove (Reevaluate) my waymark.  I was surprised that it was published.  I do not want to archive the waymark.  Thank you.

Edited by elyob

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, elyob said:

Please unapprove (Reevaluate) my waymark.  I was surprised that it was published.  I do not want to archive the waymark.  Thank you.

Ok, I do not have a problem with that:ph34r:
But I find it unfortunate of you to play this game:wacko:, then you create a WM that does not respect the instructions hoping to publish it
I find that you are not respectful towards the members of the group who review:(

 

4 hours ago, pmaupin said:

Why make this kind of restriction, a monument listed in Unesco is primarily a national monument, built by the inhabitants of this country so first a national pride for a country, which is shared later with the rest of the planet, so why take away this pride from a people?

You are VIP-member from this catégory, Why did not you make the comment before when she was put the first time to the vote

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

Ask you for your opinion:rolleyes:

On my catégorie ( link ) i have made restriction for posting a new WM

Waymarks corresponding to this category will not be validated: World Heritage Sites & War (History)
Because I consider, that a monument or a site that is part of the UNESCO heritage and War Site (Where people fought for values of freedom and peace) has a higher value than the others, must be in her own dedicated Catégorie

Do you find this unfair ? please argument it

Please explain your ideas some more.  The World Heritage Sites and war monuments waymarks of Belgium can be in their respective dedicated category.  Why not include those "higher value" waymarks in more than one category?

Edited by elyob
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

You are VIP-member from this catégory, Why did not you make the comment before when she was put the first time to the vote

If you want it I can leave the group, I have already told you several times that it poses a problem for me this restriction. I'm not limited, I had a waymark of validated in the category and you asked me archived, what I did to respect you. As you engage in a conversation on the forum it is normal that we can express ourselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

Hi

Ask you for your opinion:rolleyes:

On my catégorie ( link ) i have made restriction for posting a new WM

Waymarks corresponding to this category will not be validated: World Heritage Sites & War (History)
Because I consider, that a monument or a site that is part of the UNESCO heritage and War Site (Where people fought for values of freedom and peace) has a higher value than the others, must be in her own dedicated Catégorie

Do you find this unfair ? please argument it

Since your category is about "Belgian monuments, properties, and protected sites" I see no problem with prohibiting either World Heritage Sites or War monuments. There are extant categories for both and neither are your intended target.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, pmaupin said:

If you want it I can leave the group, I have already told you several times that it poses a problem for me this restriction. I'm not limited, I had a waymark of validated in the category and you asked me archived, what I did to respect you. As you engage in a conversation on the forum it is normal that we can express ourselves.

No, i didn't want that you leave the group
But I'm a little upset
I sent a Mail mid-January with a draft to all the members = some remarks on the form but nothing on the bottom of the text
On 11/02/2018 first Vote to approve group's category ==> failed (one of the officiere didn't vote) ==> NO remarks
On  20/02/2018 Second vote ==> Succesful ==> No remark
On  23/02/2018 Peer Review ==> Remark over that i ask specific language, over problem for "Instructions for Visiting and some problem with "Dropbox" ==> have made change
And now some players are clamoring over these restrictions, and didn't accept my point of view on hierarchy and respect

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

Since your category is about "Belgian monuments, properties, and protected sites" I see no problem with prohibiting either World Heritage Sites or War monuments. There are extant categories for both and neither are your intended target.

Thx, Your reaction overwhelmed me enormouslyB)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

I respect your WM, I think that F & M had an oversight, accepting your WM
Would be nice of you to remove your WM to respect the instructions

Good evening,
There was indeed an error on my part when I published this WM in this category, sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On March 1, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michaelfiles said:

Ok, I do not have a problem with that:ph34r:
But I find it unfortunate of you to play this game:wacko:, then you create a WM that does not respect the instructions hoping to publish it
I find that you are not respectful towards the members of the group who review:(

I created the WM as an example to be debated by reviewers and other waymarkers.  I did not want it to be approved.  I wanted people to argue about it.  My apologies: I meant no disrespect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/1/2018 at 7:06 AM, Michaelfiles said:

Hi

Ask you for your opinion:rolleyes:

On my catégorie ( link ) i have made restriction for posting a new WM

Waymarks corresponding to this category will not be validated: World Heritage Sites & War (History)
Because I consider, that a monument or a site that is part of the UNESCO heritage and War Site (Where people fought for values of freedom and peace) has a higher value than the others, must be in her own dedicated Catégorie

Do you find this unfair ? please argument it

CAPS and bold for emphasis in this long post (not shouting). :)

 

With this restriction in place at Peer Review, I would have voted NO on the category. I would not have been alone. 

In Waymarking a category is a category is a category. McDonalds & Pizza Huts are equally as important in Waymarking as Specific Veteran Memorials and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. 

For every waymarker who rolls their eyes at what they consider “unworthy” or “stupid” categories, there are other waymarkers that love them. The solution is to create clear categories, accept everything in them that meets guidelines, and if you think a category is dull or dumb, ignore it. 

It also begs the question if why you wanted to create a category to place all the sites that are on the various historical registries in Belgium ... if you DIDN’T. By refusing to accept UNESCO sites and War memorials that are also listed on the various historical registries in Belgium you are injecting uncertainty and bad feelings into what could be a fun category to waymark in. You are also depriving waymarkers of what should be a valid posting in the category they accepted. Icons matter a great deal to the icon hunters.

I’m also confused as to why you would discount the value of your own category by saying that worthy historical-registry listed sites won’t be accepted because they should only be in a “higher value” category than yours if they can ALSO be listed THERE. That makes no sense to me — is the waymarked thing on a qualifying historical registry or not. If yes, it goes in your category. If not, it doesn’t. Easy. 

UNESCO World Heritage sites often get created around things long since placed on a state or country’s historically-significant properties list. The Alamo has been a protected historical site for a very VERY long time, and a UNESCO WH site (San Antonio Missions) for only a few years. 

There is NOTHING wrong or diminishing to a site to be able to waymark it in more than 1 category (cross-posting). The Alamo in San Antonio is cross-posted in a dozen categories or more, including US National Registers of Historic Properties AND in UNESCO World Heritage Sites, AND in Battlefields, AND in Political Revolutions, AND in Webcams, AND in Guestbooks, AND in Old Spanish Trail Auto Route, etc. None of those other categories detract from thr Alamo’s importance. It’s still the Shrine of Texas Liberty. Patriots still died there. (TODAY is Texas Independence Day, by the way, the anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto.)

It’s also not cool to change a category description so significantly to add such a sweeping and controversial exclusion literally a week AFTER peer review. 

As a waymarker, I need to know what categories things go in. I need clear descriptions and requirements so I know what to look for and how to present it. You had that in the category that went to Peer Review. Now you’re changing it? Whether a monument is on a qualifying registry (or not) is a question of FACT: it either IS on a qualifying registry or it ISN’T. That’s easy for me as a waymarker. Now your exclusion makes that bright clear line messy.

In my view, categories should NOT be changed after peer review without good reasons: to respond to changing conditions in Waymarking (approval of a more specific category AFTER a more general category) or to respond to changing conditions in the world environment (refusing to accept iron horsehead hitching posts because they are popular now and are being made again) or to resolve a persistent issue for waymarkers (see discussion about Figurative Public Sculpture).

Also in my view, once a category passes Peer review it “belongs” to the Waymarking community that said with their votes, “this is a category we would like to add to Waymarking.” Yes, you conceived of the category, wrote it up and got it through Peer Review. But once it is approved by the community, they are stakeholders in it too. You get the management duties, but waymarkers SHOULD get the category they voted to approve, subject to later changes required to preserve the spirit and intent of the category as it was intended.

 

 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

So far, one-third of the submitted registry-listed sites have been rejected as waymarks because of the restrictions.

Those restrictions were included in the early drafts of the category description.  See this thread back on February 1st.

Edited by elyob

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Mama Blasterz, imagine Unesco provides a new list of Belgium monuments, would you decline all waymarks already approved ?

And you lost the opportunity to bring together all the belgium heritage in one category

Edited by Alfouine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMXVP8_Newfoundland_gedenkteken_met_omgeving_Harelbeke_West_Vlaanderen

Here is an interesting situation. This waymark is for the landscape surrounding a war monument, not for the war monument. The landscape has its own official registry listing.

The war monument is already a World War I Memorials and Monuments waymark: WMCQ6T. It also has its own official registry listing. https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/aanduidingsobjecten/13447

Should I submit my waymark to the category? What are the arguments?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, elyob said:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMXVP8_Newfoundland_gedenkteken_met_omgeving_Harelbeke_West_Vlaanderen

Here is an interesting situation. This waymark is for the landscape surrounding a war monument, not for the war monument. The landscape has its own official registry listing.

The war monument is already a World War I Memorials and Monuments waymark: WMCQ6T. It also has its own official registry listing. https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/aanduidingsobjecten/13447

Should I submit my waymark to the category? What are the arguments?

Oh I think you absolutely SHOULD submit the registered shrubbery to the category - The listed shrubbery gets accepted because it meets the category guidelines, and the separately-listed war memorial gets denied because it is specifically and arbitrarily excluded AFTER peer review!!! :laughing:

[Bring us a shrubbery! (One that looks nice, and is listed in a qualifying Belgium historical monument registry.]

This waymark perfectly highlights the problem the arbitrary exclusions (added to this category after peer review) has created.

By only accepting some registered historical properties in Belgium and not others, in a category that was sold to waymarkers as accepting them ALL, this is what you get: a category that excludes extremely significant historical sites (UNESCO sites) and some of the most meaningful sites (war memorials) in Belgium, but happily will include shrubberies. :rolleyes:

 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Benchmark Blasterz your intervention is very relevant but I want to put some things in front

On 03/03/2018 at 1:26 AM, Benchmark Blasterz said:

It’s also not cool to change a category description so significantly to add such a sweeping and controversial exclusion literally a week AFTER peer review. 

As a waymarker, I need to know what categories things go in. I need clear descriptions and requirements so I know what to look for and how to present it. You had that in the category that went to Peer Review. Now you’re changing it? Whether a monument is on a qualifying registry (or not) is a question of FACT: it either IS on a qualifying registry or it ISN’T. That’s easy for me as a waymarker. Now your exclusion makes that bright clear line messy.

6 hours ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

Oh I think you absolutely SHOULD submit the registered shrubbery to the category - The listed shrubbery gets accepted because it meets the category guidelines, and the separately-listed war memorial gets denied because it is specifically and arbitrarily excluded AFTER peer review!!!

You were wrong, on that point I did not change anything after peer review

And eloyb comfirm it in his post

On 03/03/2018 at 3:35 AM, elyob said:

Those restrictions were included in the early drafts of the category description.  See this thread back on February 1st.

 
I actually have made some changes but only in connection with the remarks during the Peer Review, on the issue of languages (better), clarification on "Instructions for Visiting" (syntax problem) and also delete Dropbox links but basically no change
 
For the rest I will discuss with my Officer and VIP Member from the group
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, elyob said:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMXVP8_Newfoundland_gedenkteken_met_omgeving_Harelbeke_West_Vlaanderen

Here is an interesting situation. This waymark is for the landscape surrounding a war monument, not for the war monument. The landscape has its own official registry listing.

The war monument is already a World War I Memorials and Monuments waymark: WMCQ6T. It also has its own official registry listing. https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/aanduidingsobjecten/13447

Should I submit my waymark to the category? What are the arguments?

 

I just declined it
As I said in the post just before, I initiated an investigation on the issue to all members of the group ( and not only officer & VIP member)so you are part (Mail sent 1 hour ago)
It would have been nice if you waited for the result of the investigation before proposing this MM............

For information for others : I send a Mail to the all membre (including elyop)
"Hello, I created an investigation (link to the investigation) to find out what we will do with regard to the issue of Restrictions.
I find it unfortunate that I have received only one remark on this point since I initiated the procedure for creating the Category And now when we point out that there is this restriction a majority is unleashed on that
This investigation remains online until Wednesday 6 pm.
Thank you for answering.
Michaelfiles"
 
Question ask 5a9c02f2b5a96_doodleinves.jpg.42ac752be315d32471e672559852339f.jpg
Edited by Michaelfiles
Investigation

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

I just declined it
As I said in the post just before, I initiated an investigation on the issue to all members of the group ( and not only officer & VIP member)so you are part (Mail sent 1 hour ago)
It would have been nice if you waited for the result of the investigation before proposing this MM............

I am a member of the group, but i received nothing !!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

Benchmark Blasterz your intervention is very relevant but I want to put some things in front

You were wrong, on that point I did not change anything after peer review

And eloyb comfirm it in his post

 
I actually have made some changes but only in connection with the remarks during the Peer Review, on the issue of languages (better), clarification on "Instructions for Visiting" (syntax problem) and also delete Dropbox links but basically no change
 
For the rest I will discuss with my Officer and VIP Member from the group
 
 

Bold and caps for emphasis (as always) and not shouting

I did not see the restrictions in the category description that I edited. Things get added and dropped in category descriptions all the time as they are being readied for peer review.

If it was your intention all along to have that restriction, then it should have been highlighted (as obviously as it is now) at the time of Peer Review. No voters would have missed seeing those restrictions, and your PR vote outcomes would have been DRAMATICALLY different. 

The proof that it was added (or added back) AFTER Peer Review is in your own words:

On 3/1/2018 at 7:06 AM, Michaelfiles said:

On my catégorie ( link ) i have made restriction for posting a new WM

Waymarks corresponding to this category will not be validated: World Heritage Sites & War (History)
Because I consider, that a monument or a site that is part of the UNESCO heritage and War Site (Where people fought for values of freedom and peace) has a higher value than the others, must be in her own dedicated Catégorie

Do you find this unfair ? please argument it”

The restrictions against accepting UNESCO Sites and War memorials were added (or added back) after Peer Review, and this is what has created all this drama now. 

It’s good that you have decided to poll and discuss this with the category officers and hopefully also your regular members.

Waymarking category management (as you are learning) should be a COLLABORATION not a DICTATORSHIP. Making changes to an approved category without officer input, discussion here, and buy-in from ALL stakeholders (which includes regular members of the category AND the Waymarking community) creates bad feelings and jeopardizes the long-term health of your category. 

It’s worth pointing out that Geocaching and Waymarking are different games with different cultures and community expectations. Geocaching is an INDIVIDUAL game that relies on individual cache owners to create caches for other INDIVIDUAL catchers to find. As a cache owner, I need only the approval of a volunteer reviewer to get it published. Then, after publication, I can archive my geocache anytime I want, for any reason I want, and there is no discussion. It’s my decision, and only my decision. As a finder, I know that a planned caching adventure can be affected anytime by a cache owner’s decision to archive their categories, so we check that the caches are still active before heading out the door. 

That is not the culture of Waymarking, which was designed as a COMMUNITY game. It’s why you have to recruit officers to your group before you can create a category, then 5ey have to vote to approve the category, and you have come up with a category description that any premium member of Geocaching can vote up or down at Peer Review. It’s expected that new categories will be discussed in the forums, and woe to the proposed category that is not. 

You have made a mistake from inexperience, but Waymarking is new to you. Now it seems that you are on the right track - responsive to the input of the category’s stakeholders, and coming here to discuss. 

I have hope that this category can be straightened out and the controversy around it can disperse. If this category will accept all Belgium sites listed on qualifying registries it will be a wonderful addition to Waymarking and a place to show off the history of an fascinating country. In other words: IT WILL BE FUN TO WAYMARK IN. 

If the restriction stays, i think that the icon hunters will be one and done. Your icon hunters are frequently your most prolific waymarkers, and will often go back through old photos to create waymarks in a new category. 

EDITED TO ADD - I just joined the group as a regular member.

I vote REMOVE RESTRICTION. 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

The proof that it was added (or added back) AFTER Peer Review is in your own words:

On 3/1/2018 at 7:06 AM, Michaelfiles said:

If I understand correctly you claim that I Mens, So understand that I'm upset
I think it's you who do not understand exactly what's going on
In fact the problem is precisely when people began to publish WM ( a week ago), and that some are seen refused on Brussels and in Brugge they realized that he had a restriction
As proof even Elyop confirms that it existed before

On 03/03/2018 at 3:35 AM, elyob said:

So far, one-third of the submitted registry-listed sites have been rejected as waymarks because of the restrictions.

Those restrictions were included in the early drafts of the category description.  See this thread back on February 1st.

 and Please re-read your own comment of 2/2/2018 on my post 1/2/2018 where I present my first draft
You never say it's over the restriction who are well in the draft but we have discussion over language and font

 

Sorry if I got back enough, but I never would have thought that this restriction could hit so many people and it's just that after we react and that takes me to a dictator
It seems to me that, it's logic as when the category is published, we respect the instructions that have been established and that we respect them.


 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

EDITED TO ADD - I just joined the group as a regular member.

I vote REMOVE RESTRICTION. 

I will take it into account

 

Edited by Michaelfiles
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

I will take it into account

 

I appreciate you taking my vote into account. I won’t get the email because I was not a member when you sent it. I am a member now.

I helped you with this category and supported your desire for the WM to be rendered in one of the native languages of Belgium (as long as English translation was rendered too) - a requirement that some voters objected to.  I voted in support of this category in peer review. I want this category to succeed - I want ALL the categories to succeed (even ones I have little to no interest in).

I think without the restrictions you added your category will right itself and be a viable and educational addition to Waymarking and the world, sharing the rich history of Belgium and ALL of its historically significant sites* -  wasn’t that the point of the category in the first place?

*Waymarks are frequently at the top of Google searches, so what we do as a community MATTERS

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

If I understand correctly you claim that I Mens, So understand that I'm upset
I think it's you who do not understand exactly what's going on
In fact the problem is precisely when people began to publish WM ( a week ago), and that some are seen refused on Brussels and in Brugge they realized that he had a restriction
As proof even Elyop confirms that it existed before

 and Please re-read your own comment of 2/2/2018 on my post 1/2/2018 where I present my first draft
You never say it's over the restriction who are well in the draft but we have discussion over language and font

 

Sorry if I got back enough, but I never would have thought that this restriction could hit so many people and it's just that after we react and that takes me to a dictator
It seems to me that, it's logic as when the category is published, we respect the instructions that have been established and that we respect them.


 

I was very careful not to call you a dictator personally, and I don’t think you are. You make changes requested by the community and you interact here. You receive inputs and seek them out.

The larger point I was making is that Geocaching is an individual game, and so Is in many ways a dictatorship: my cache, my rules. If I decide to archive my cache, it’s gone - without any input or recourse from the community. 

But Waymarking is community game by design. Unilateral actions in Waymarking are ALWAYS controversial. See threads about the Nobel Prize category, Artesian Wells, and others. This is our Waymarking culture: one of cooperation between category leaders, members, and waymarkers to create, manage, activate, and energize the categories. That structure and culture does NOT exist in Geocaching. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

Here the ACK i receive from WM

Mail.jpg.61b35f092eb3d9377164179cdaa4bc2b.jpg

You have exactly the same message if you send it only to officers, but i never received it and i want to vote, is it possible to forward this message to me, please

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

For the rest I will discuss with my Officer and VIP Member from the group

 
 

I expected a category officer or the group of officers would review my waymark submission and then approve or deny that waymark based on the category description including restrictions and other criteria.  That is the usual process.  Instead of reviewing my latest submission, you yourself denied my waymark without review.

Instead of reviewing my submission as a group, you sent mail to all members.  I did NOT recieve that mail.  I was one of the first waymarkers to join your group.

I think I am done with this category.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, elyob said:

I expected a category officer or the group of officers would review my waymark submission and then approve or deny that waymark based on the category description including restrictions and other criteria.  That is the usual process.  Instead of reviewing my latest submission, you yourself denied my waymark without review.

Instead of reviewing my submission as a group, you sent mail to all members.  I did NOT recieve that mail.  I was one of the first waymarkers to join your group.

I think I am done with this category.

Elyob, i didn't  know if you understand Ducht
When you go to the link ==> New Foundlanders ...... opgetrokken als gedenkteken aan de Newfoundlandse soldaten die op 19 oktober 1918 als eerste de Leie over staken.  =>

erected as a memorial to the Newfoundland soldiers who were the first to cross the Leie on 19 October 1918 <== WAR ==> Declined 

Oorlog.jpg.056c7eb93d6c38fdcdb0dc5306125617.jpg

Edited by Michaelfiles

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Alfouine said:

You have exactly the same message if you send it only to officers, but i never received it and i want to vote, is it possible to forward this message to me, please

I just sent back to all members

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

OK -- this one I SHOULD get, but as of 1634 CDT, I have not.

"but as of 1634 CDT, I have not" ??? i didn't understood, please explain

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

"but as of 1634 CDT, I have not" ??? i didn't understood, please explain

It means that as of 4:34 PM (1634) US Central Daylight time (22:34 GMT) I have not gotten the email you have sent all the officers and members.  

And an hour later, it's still not in my email in box.

Would it be possible to post a link to the poll here and let the community respond? Then all the "I didn't get the email" stuff goes away.

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz

Share this post


Link to post

I have not yet received first or second mailing.

Initially, I thought that I could work around the restrictions concerning this waymark category.  If I were now to vote on those category restrictions, I think every official registry listing should qualify as a waymark (without restrictions).  I had plans to submit more than a dozen waymarks to this category.  It looks like half of those waymarks would be disqualified by the restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, elyob said:

I have not yet received first or second mailing.

Initially, I thought that I could work around the restrictions concerning this waymark category.  If I were now to vote on those category restrictions, I think every official registry listing should qualify as a waymark (without restrictions).  I had plans to submit more than a dozen waymarks to this category.  It looks like half of those waymarks would be disqualified by the restrictions.

Me neither, and it is now 2100/9:00 PM US Central Time zone/03:00 GMT 

I registered my vote in this forum, and it was accepted :)

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

I just sent back to all members

I did not receive neither the second email. May this this function does not work...

My vote is : NO RESTRICTIONS

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I know (I never tried it myself) the email to all group members function does not work, never has.

I also think these restrictions were not a good idea. It does not serve any purpose than making things more complicated than necessary. Cross-postings have never been an objection by the community.

Maybe we should be more nitpick on details and fine print in future peer reviews. It is not enough that the big picture looks great, it's the details that the create problems and frustrations.

Edited by fi67
Typo.
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×