I wrote:
>Also, is there a list of protected pages somewhere, or else some DB query
>we can run to generate such a list? I sometimes wonder if pages have been
>protected about and then forgotten, left protected forever more.
I read [[Wikipedia talk:Database queries]] and found my answer: SELECT
cur_namespace,cur_title FROM cur WHERE cur_restrictions != ''
Not having a good day with mailing lists...
lp (camembert)
I don't know how long the page should remain protected; I'm going to
leave myself a note on my user page, but I'm about to go to bed so
it'll probably be 8 hrs or more. Maybe it should be unprotected
earlier, and if so, you (whoever "you" are in this case) have my
blessing. If not, I'll do it when I get up.
best,
kq
Checking in from the real world for a moment...
I don't think the Recent Changes page should have a link to "Vandalism"
as one of the utilities on the top.
I'm sorry I wasn't around to handle the Judeocentrism entry. A little
merciless editing would have dealt with it quite well.
But then, we can always ban people, I guess.
You Wrote:
>Someone uploaded something as this user. I tried the obvious password
and it
>didn't work (intending to change it to something random and promptly forget
>it). Can someone with database access make sure that the account is
unusable?
>
>phma
i changed it to a rather long password which I'm fairly certain no one will
guess.
kq
Done.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Abbat [mailto:phma@webjockey.net]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:46 PM
To: WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] MyPasswordIsXYXY
Someone uploaded something as this user. I tried the obvious password and it
didn't work (intending to change it to something random and promptly forget
it). Can someone with database access make sure that the account is unusable?
phma
Someone uploaded something as this user. I tried the obvious password and it
didn't work (intending to change it to something random and promptly forget
it). Can someone with database access make sure that the account is unusable?
phma
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.
Hello all,
I am very pleased to tell you, that a compromise was achieved in the
Oder/Odra river dispute. Even Space Cadet agreed to this compromise
and promised to convince Taw of complying with it as well.
Could a sysop please move the article "Odra-Nysa line" back to
"Oder-Neisse line"? I don't think, that the edit wars will go on.
Thank you.
Mirko.
--
Mirko Thiessen
http://www.mirko-thiessen.de
Geoff Burling wrote:
> In other words, we should expect a number of edit wars between
> German chauvinists & Polish chauvinists to occur over territories that
> were formerly part of Germany for the foreseeable future?
No. The articles about Gdansk/Danzig and Szczecin/Stettin are findable under their
Polish names (Gdansk, Szczecin), and that's fine, because these are now Polish cities. As
for Oder/Odra and Neisse/Nysa, these are common German-Polish rivers, so I don't see,
why the name "Oder" should be forgotten in the future, as Space Cadet predicted.
What do you think about that solution: call it "Oder" in articles relating to German regions
(Lower Oder Valley National Park), call it "Odra" in articles relating to Polish regions
(Szczecin). The article about the river itself is titled with one of these names, and the other
name is stated in the first sentence of that article. The same should be done for
Neisse/Nysa. And everyone can be happy again ;-)
So, my vote is to leave the main article where it is now: "Odra", since there are greater
portions of the river in Poland. If you agree, I change the name for the German regions
back to "Oder" and link it to "Odra". The same may be done for Neisse/Nysa.
If you agree, I will place this (or another) compromise on the Odra talk page, in order to
refer everyone begining the dispute anew to that page.
Mirko.
--
Mirko Thiessen
http://www.mirko-thiessen.de
The reason geographical names are crucially important to some
people is that they are actively engaged in political advocacy.
For example, the "occupied Palestinian territories". This simple
term carries a lot of baggage.
The term means that Gaza and West Bank are _under occupation_,
which in turn implies that Israel is wrong to have its military
forces there. The term also means that the territories belong
to "Palestinians"; when we de-reference this latter term, we
find that Palestinians are a stateless people (nearly all Arabs)
living in (or desiring to live in) the region formerly known
as Palestine.
So, every time someone mentions Gaza and the West Bank, they
have a choice: simply call them "Gaza and the West Bank", which
doesn't imply much of anything; or call them the "occupied
Palestinian territories", which implies that Israel shouldn't
have those lands but the stateless Arabs should.
Wikipedia actually has to make this choice. It can choose to
get to the bottom of the controversy, take an objective stance,
and educate people as to the real truth. Or it can do its best
to stay out of the controversy and merely report on what the
various advocates say. I have tried to word the various Arab-
Israeli conflict article so that Wikipedia can stay above the
controversy (BTW, how'm I doin? ;-).
What does this have to do with Polish or German names? Well,
I don't know: nothing, I hope. But I worry that some advocates
may be playing a variation on the "occupied Palestinian terri-
tories" game. If the REAL name of a geographical feature is
Polish, that implies that its REAL OWNER is Poland. Or, real
name German implies real owner is Germany.
I think we should rise above this controversy as much as we can:
* Acknowledge the _existence_ of alternate names.
* Avoid any pronouncement that either alternative is the
"right" one.
* Where controversy is heated, describe it in the article,
e.g., "German historian Adolf Hamburger calls this village
Frankfort, while Polish geographer Jerzy Polska call it
Phrangforcky."
My 2 cents.
Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor