I am having a problem. Everytime I want to edit, I get this error message:
"Error in numRows(): Can't execute the query because you have a conflicting
read lock." A number was given to me: 10.0.0.102. I am not sure if that is
an IP address or not.
Regards,
Zachary Harden, Eagle Scout (BSA)
User:Zscout370
I agree with David's contention that VFD in Very F'ing Destructive.
How about replacing it with a category tag convention? Simply place a
[[category:delete]] tag on an article, and explain your reasoning on the
article's talk page?
(We could make sub-categories like:
* [[category:delete-hopeless-stub]]
* [[category:delete-non-notable-person]], etc.
I'm tempted to just Be Bold and just go ahead and delete vfd. Just see
if I don't!!
Impatiently,
Uncle Ed
Anthere,
I think it would help Admins at en.wikipedia if we knew which of our
contributors have been blocked from contributing to other Wikimedia
projects - such as the French or German encyclopedias.
It's so easy to be a charming and helpful contributor that I am no
longer worried about potential "civil rights violations". Disruptive
users should not be tolerated.
If anyone wants to coach a clueless newbie, that's their choice. I've
helped user:Gabrielsimon and he seems to have learned enough to avoid
being blocked while I was on vacation last week. But ordinarily, if
people don't want to follow rules on being civil or avoiding bias, the
project is MUCH better off without them.
This is not the world's largest blog. It's a project to create an
encyclopedia. Serious, dedicated people are needed here. Troublemakers
should be shown the door - and quickly.
Oncle Edmond
Your policy of indiscriminate blocking of edits from
IP addresses of the TOR anonymous network is a serious
violation of individual privacy. At the moment you
generate a "User is blocked" page as tor is classified
as "open proxy".
OK, I understand that you want to prevent abuse from
open proxies when the use is not logged in, but WHY
BLOCK LOGGED IN USERS who use the Tor network only
because they don't want everyone (and any government
agencies) to be able to track what they are personally
interested in.
Please block only users who are not logged in from
open proxies. Abuse from logged in users can be dealt
with by blocking the user rather than the IP of the
open proxy. Please don't be indiscriminate, please
don't block innocent users who prefer privacy.
This is very important. I realized I cannot edit
Wikipedia any more if anyone can check everything I am
interested in. Thanks!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I regret that I must cease participation in this discussion because it has become a platform for abuse of specific individuals. This cessation is probably just as well, since the lack of participation by anyone except A. Nony Mouse and myself suggests that only the two of us think the proposal worthy of discussion.
Theo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway
The above RFC is completely on crack and those involved should be ashamed
of themselves. If you look closely, you'll see it's actually sour grapes
over one VFD debate they didn't like the closing of.
VFD performs a useful function about as damagingly as it could possibly be
performed. It's being used as a substitute for cleanup, wikify, and
copyvio. It's being used to push agendas of all sorts. It's constantly
creating increased animosity between editors.
The VFD regulars are openly hostile to non-regulars. One of the arguments
against breaking up VFD from the all-on-one-page to day pages a couple of
months ago was that it would attract too many people to vote if the pages
were more usable! I mean, what the fuck?
VFD the idea is one thing. VFD the present reality is pathological. More
rules on it won't fix it - it needs to be taken out and shot.
MOTION: That while VFD nominally performs a useful function in clearing
crap out of Wikipedia, its current operation and subcommunity is so
pathological and damaging to the Wikipedia community that it should be
removed entirely. Remove it completely. Then talk and think how to come
up with something that works without becoming an engine for rancor.
- d.
> We have a situation.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic
eboard/Incidents#Existentializer.2C_suspected_sock_of_E> nviroknot
>
> As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has
> taken a cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and
> is using them to "prove" a point which cannot be made.
>
> Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":
[snip]
I don't think this kind of thing is an appropriate topic for the mailing
list. Any user whose account has been improperly blocked can discuss the
block on their talk page. That's what Tim Starling's new feature is
specifically for.
In a parallel vein, if complaints such as this are only arguing about
whether "rules were followed properly" in blocking their account, then
it is doubly off-topic. All such complaints should include a list of
contributions the user plans to make to the encyclopedia.
The idea that Anyone Has A Right To Edit is not true, and has never been
true. Rather, it is,
* "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right."
We assume good faith, but if an Administrator feels you have violated
policy, the burden falls on you to prove otherwise.
Ed Poor
"Bureaucrat"
I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that I
would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for personal use
soley on the Wikipedia site, after seeing that it was copyrighted to the
Wikipedia foundation I emailed Jimbo asking for formal permission to use
the image as a part of the future work. I have not recieved any reply
and so I decided to continue assuming that since there are already other
works based off the Wikipedia logo on the site it would be ok and I
could deal with tagging later.. I have since uploaded the work and amd
wondering whether it is a copyright violation or not and if not what it
should be tagged since it doesn't seem to fall under any of the
licensing schemes. BTW, the image can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darkwiki.jpg.
I've also been meaning to ask how the copyright on the Wikipedia logo
works since it seems to be a paradox of terms, especially since it has
been established that despite claims otherwise, see [[User:Pioneer-12]]
everything posted or uploaded to Wikipedia is automatically licensed
under the GFDL yet the logo appears to be exempt.
Thanks,
-Jtkiefer
