I'm trying to create a new article. Show preview
works, but when I click on "Save", I get a page which
says "Database error
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Internal error" and a message at the top that says
"Warning: mysql_query(): Unable to save result set in
/usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.4/includes/Database.php
on line 324".
I have tried four times to do a Save and keep getting
this error.
Are people still working on the servers?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
This domain (en.wikipedia.org) has been reserved for the Wikipedia in
the English language. Would you like this wiki to be created?
I clicked the "Yes" button; I'll check back in a couple of hours.
Mischievously yours,
Uncle Ed
Wolfman, I'm not ignoring you. It's just that the Wikipedia has forked
itself up, which really sucks (see [[autofellatio]] ;-)
Here's my considered opinion about how we should treat the [[Killian
documents]] controversy:
==the documents were faked==
I think the phrase ''the documents were faked''
should not be used in the text of the article.
First of all, it represents a point of view.
Secondly, it states that POV in a confusing
way.
The chief issues here are:
* Did Killian actually write the documents in
question?
** Does dictating notes to a secretary, who
then types up an UNSIGNED document count as
"Killian writing the documents"? Then it's just
a matter of (1) Did Killian dictate those
notes; and (2) Did his secretary type 'em up
for him?
* Was the copy CBS published "real", or what?
** To what extent can a reconstructed document
legitimately be presented as an "authentic
copy" of an original?
** If I use Office 2002 to word-process a copy
of a decades-old document (which I have in my
hand, but I can't get it to a xerox machine) -
and if I use a Courier font so it '''looks
like''' it was typed, how much of these details
am I obliged to reveal?
(A related example concerns my "far-right-wing"
church. When I received bookkeeper training in
1991, my church treasurer told me that the IRS
will accept hand-written or typed "receipts"
for petty cash expenditures, in lieu of printed
cash register receipts. This is primarily
intended for purchases such as buying soda from
a vending machine, or using a pay phone. You
just had to make sure you didn't overdo it;
accounting for 100% of petty cash with
reconstructed receipts would positively be a
violation, and the treasurer would, er, "stomp"
on me way ahead of any IRS audit, maybe even
remove me from my position if I stayed out of
compliance. The point here is that
'''reconstructed documents''' are allowable in
certain contexts.)
The question for Dan Rather and 60 Minutes is
whether this '''single case''' of presenting a
document as evidence of a political claim is:
# A straightforward presentation of an
'''original''' document
# A '''permissible''' reconstruction''' of an
authentic document
# An '''illegitimate''' reconstruction''' of an
authentic document
# A forgery, i.e., he never wrote that; he
didn't dictate anything like it to his
secretary; he never even thought that
Considering the importance of the issue, I
think we'd be better off ducking all
conclusions. It opens too many Pandora's boxes.
Let's not call them "faked documents" but
"documents relating to George W. Bush's service
in the Air National Guard. Let's mention that
the matter was investigated and aired during
the last election (the won he didn't "really
win", remember?) and that they brought it up at
the last minute AGAIN for this election (with a
link to [[October surprise]]). Oh, and don't
forget to mention that at least '''part''' of
the furor was over the "authenticity" of the
documents.
We should handle this dispute with as much care
and sensitivity as the death of [[Rachel
Corrie]]. ~~~~
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:00 PM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 19, Issue 93
>
>
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
> << File: Today's Topics (9 messages) >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l]
Re: The Censorship Lie >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio -
NO to that image >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony, David,
and Christiaan >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to
that image >> << Message: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie >> <<
Message: Child porn and wikipedia (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO
tothat image) >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures >>
<< Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures >> << Message: Re:
[WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie >> << File: Digest Footer >>
Teresa wrote:
> You want TBSDY desysopped because he blocked SS-88 after he said
this:
>
> "You consider the right side of the fence to be on the side of the
> haters. You call us stupid, but you should know that we have a log of
> your hatred and abuse of "power" against one of our comrades. THAT
WAS
> STUPID! Your actions have been documented and have, so far, been
> circulated to thousands of aryans who do not look kindly on your type
> of hatred. You know what happens to people who ignore history......
> 88 !!"
>
> I refer you to the blocking policy:
>
> "Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or
> actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site)
which
> expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other
> persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a
> case a ban for a period of time may be applied immediately by any
> sysop upon discovery. "
>
> This looks like a pretty straightforward case to me.
I must be missing something. How do these (highly offensive) remarks
expose this sysop to "political, religious or other persecution by
government, their employer or any others"? Unless the sysop lives in
a state with a Nazi government, it is clear to me that there is no
such exposure.
My mail is really about the principles rather than this particular
case.
I think it would be a very bad idea to allow sysops to block people
who insult them, except in the most extreme cases. The
community will see it as the sysop using their powers to their own
personal benefit, and they will be right.
Zero.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hi all, you may have seen my message on the Village Pump. I'm a PhD
student whose research is on online communities and I'm soliciting
volunteers to do interviews about Wikipedia.
If you aren't interested, ignore me.:-) If you are interested, please
understand that any information you provide in an interview will be
held in complete confidence and no identifiable details about you will
be included when the results of this study are written up for
publication.
If you would like to participate, please <i>read</i> and submit the
form: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2005/cs6470_spring/researchstudy/webcons…
to consent to the study and I or one of my co-investigators will
contact you to set up an interview at a convenient time. For more
information about me and my research, please feel free to visit my
userpage.
Thanks for your time!
Andrea Forte
AKA Andicat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andicat
test.
--
India.com free e-mail - www.india.com.
Check out our value-added Premium features, such as an extra 20MB for mail storage, POP3, e-mail forwarding, and ads-free mailboxes!
Powered by Outblaze
=> Viajero wrote:
=> > to be a problem, some kind of voluntary agreement, like the three
revert
=> > rule, may be the only solution.
=>
=> The 3RR is not an agreement nor is it voluntary, as implied by the
word
=> "rule". People, including those that had no hand in formulating or
=> adopting it, are routinely held to it and blocked for violation of
it.
Jimbo occasionally has weighed in and said a particular thread has gone
on long enough.
Also, when I ran the list, I would occasionally send "talkative" people
a private e-mail asking them to post less often. I mean, some people
would post 10+ times a day EVERY DAY, and it would get out of hand. Once
or twice, I actually put someone's posts into "hold for review"
purgatory.
But now with the database locked, there's nothing else to do but talk
about Wikipedia, so brace yourself for a flood.
Uncle Ed
If my spamculations are correct, this will appear directly bellow my
"test?" msg; at least according to this manual. Unless I got the wrong
manual which seems likely as this one appears to be a coupon for
office supplies - well, it has been of great aid for me either way. I
did find the test group, but it ended up being usenet. ---enough bad
jokes; test end---
Hi,
I'm not sure who to contact, so here goes. Zend Technologies, the pHp
company, would like to donate licenses of its Zend Platform product to
your organization. Zend Platform is an integrated software platform for
pHp that enhances performance, detect run-time problems and helps with
pHp configurations across servers.
If there is an interest, please contact me at brian(a)zend.com
Thanks!
-B
Brian DeGonia
Zend Technologies
www.zend.com <http://www.zend.com/>
415.269.2878 (mobile)
Hi,
As someone who has studied, written about, and opposed the political right for over 20 years, I may surprise some by saying that I correspond with a wide range of intellectuals on the political right who are quite able to understand the concept of an NPOV encyclopedia article--and this ranges from the Christian Right out to neonazis (not the same thing, thanks).
Bad manners in editing have no political, class, gender, race or any other boundaries. Jerks are jerks. It is the behavior we need to sanction, not the ideas.
Ironically, I write this although if you search the web you will find many articles by rightwingers saying that I do not hold these pluralistic civil society beliefs. They do not do their homework and cannot rise abouve their bias. Those that do homework, strive for NPOV, and have good collaborative manners make good editors.
Chip Berlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Poor, Edmund W
Sent: Tue 2/22/2005 10:09 AM
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV writing about extreme right-wing topics
=>From: Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk>
=>
=>I posit that Wikipedia
=>would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than
=>without;
=>could such an individual exist?
=
=I agree with this in theory; I've just never met one who fit the
criteria.
=
=Jay.
You've met *me*, and we all know that Unificationists are well to the
right of Adolf Hitler. I'm the most conservative, homophobic,
anti-scientific, pro-brainwashing, POV-pushing contributor to Wikipedia.
(Er, to hear others tell it, anyway ;-)
And yet I manage to write so neutrally on many topics that people
regularly come to me for help when there's an edit war on all sorts of
controversial articles. (Except those topics on which I have known blind
spots).
So it *is* possible for a writer to temper their extreme POV and write
neutrally.
Ed "The thick-skinned one" Poor
aka Uncle Ed
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l