This sounds vaguely unpleasant. Is it important?
----- Forwarded message from Cron Daemon <root(a)www.wikipedia.org> -----
From: root(a)www.wikipedia.org (Cron Daemon)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:36:54 GMT
To: root(a)www.wikipedia.org
Subject: Cron <root@www> /usr/bin/mrtg /etc/mrtg/mrtg.cfg
ERROR: I guess another mrtg is running. A lockfile (/etc/mrtg/mrtg.cfg_l) aged
1 seconds is hanging around. If you are sure that no other mrtg
is running you can remove the lockfile
----- End forwarded message -----
Mav wrote in part:
>Redirects are also ugly and uninformative in the search results. Their byte
>counts show up as tiny and no text is displayed below them. This isn't
>useful.
Agreed, and this goes far beyond the anglicisation issue.
We should give them the byte counts and text display
that the article that they redirect to has.
Developers, can this be done?
-- Toby
I used to be a Network Administrator for a company with 300 seats, plus as a software developer I had admin rights to all the company's MS SQL Server databases. Unclogging the network and resolving database gridlock were 2 areas I excelled in there.
If you'd like to give me developer access, I could take a look around and try to see what keeps slowing us down. I guess it's a lot of different things, many of which Brion has already identified.
But the fact that restarting the machine always speeds thing up again indicates the probable presence of one or more as-yet unidentified problems.
Of course, as a "developer" I would be ever scrupulous about the "rules" -- I would absolutely not use developer rights to, say, win a POV battle or unilaterally ban an obnoxious user.
Ed Poor
"Opinions and proposals expressed in this letter are mine personally, and are unrelated to any aims or policies of my employer."
> >A limit of 1 per minute would be much too strict,
> in my opinion. One should
> >really not go further than 2 edits per minute, and
> even that might be enough
> >to have some people get irritated and decide not to
> do 'trivial tasks' such
> >as going through the 'regular misspellings' or
> disambiguating pages.
We also have the problem of users who have to pay per
minute for Internet and who write many articles
offline and then just go online and put them all in at
once and then sign off. Why can't we just revert all
changes from one user in case something like this
happens? Also, are there still plans for the
Wikipedia Client?
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
I'm in Slovenia! Mi estas en Slovenio! Ich bin in Slowenien!
=========================================
Travel Plans: http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_SMITH
My Webpage: http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.com/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de
Tech gurus,
When I emails telling me that the wikipedia is stuck, I go and restart
apache thusly:
/apache/bin/apachectl restart
This always seems to solve the problem.
As a temporarily and admittedly horrible crutch, would it be
incredibly bad of me to make a cron job to do that once per hour
overnight?
----- Forwarded message from Anthere <anthere5(a)yahoo.com> -----
From: Anthere <anthere5(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:22:02 -0800 (PST)
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] lags
I did not have to time to go through all the mails, so
I don't know if so raised the subject, but in spite of
the changes yesterday the lags on the fr.wiki are
horrible. Yesterday evening, it took between 5 to 20
mn to edit a page. I just saved a couple of them then
give up.
We had no contributions at all between 21h and 0h
which are usually the busiest time of the day. I guess
everybody just gave up.
This has been going on for several days now. The day
before, we got the message connexion error very often
for example.
People are getting very weary, and I am worried that
the contributions will drop tremendously if this goes
on for a long time. Most contributors are from Europe.
Most can only contribute in the evening. If it doesnot
go better, they will just stop. Meanwhile, the en.wiki
was not accessible for us either. But, I noticed it
was still working for some as people were
contributing. It was impossible on the french wiki.
I know you do your best. I saw on the announcement,
you made some change to improve the matter. Well,
yesterday, it was worse than ever : -(((
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
----- End forwarded message -----
There's a new preference in CVS now to have edits minor by default, as
per someone's request on wikipedia-l. This may be helpful for
copyeditors. I haven't added it to the other Language* files (except for
German) yet.
Regards,
Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de
[Moving to <wikitech-l>, since we're now discussing programming, not policy.]
Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
[plans]
>These are surely good plans.
Thanks!
>Note that if we're willing to do the work
>to classify IPs, we can ban on the 'Client-ip' and 'X-forwarded-for'
>headers instead of the real IPs, for known shared proxies.
I don't know what this means. But I hope that it works! ^_^
>But in the long run, nothing based on ip-banning would be able to stop
>a sufficiently determined vandal. Neither would relying on registered
>accounts. At present, stealing someone else's account would be quite
>easy.
Right, the passwords and cookies are sent over the Net unencrypted.
They just need to sniff our packets (how rude!).
>I think techniques for automatically slowing down bots would be the
>most valuable place to concentrate our efforts.
This sounds promising to me too.
What's the fastest rate of saving that a legitimate user is likely to use?
What's the fastest rate of saving that we can expect to keep up with
if used by a bot? I'm going make a 0th approximation of 1 minute for each.
Too slow? too fast?
-- Toby
Mav wrote (on the other list):
> BTW, why do anonymous IPs have the ability to mark edits as minor?
> That wasn't the case for Phase II. The way it is now "hide minor edits"
> is useless because most vandals are anonymous and oftentimes mark
> their vandalisms as "minor".
I propose that we restrict the "mark edit as minor" option to signed-in contributors, on the grounds that it will help protect against vandalism.
Ed Poor
OK, here you go Erik,
I wrote:
>> Could somebody change the displayed name for links to subject pages from
>> "View Article" to "View Subject Page" (or something similar). Per our own
>> definition, my user page is not an article and neither are any
>> Wikipedia:namespaced pages.
>
>Hi,
>
>"subject page" is not a good name because it's not really clear what it
>means in any context. It's not a term we use anywhere else. Let's either
>try to come up with something less ambiguous or change the text depending
>on the namespace (e.g. "View user page" from User: pages).
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
Not clear? The subject is well, the subject of the page that you are
discussing on the talk page. This is very clear to me.
But context-based wording is even better: "View user page", "View Wikipedia
page", "View image page". If I remember, an early version of Phase II had
context-based wording for these links (green links that stated "User",
"Wikipedia" etc)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)