ADVANCE - JAVA. Introduction 2. Jdbc Architecture 3. Types of Drivers 4. ResultSet 1.Read Only ResultSet 2.Updatable ResultSet 3.Forward Only ResultSet 4.Scrollable ResultSet 6. PreparedStatement 7. Connection Modes 8. Batch Updations 10. CallableStatement 11.

A 2012 estimation of Wikipedia's large gender gap. There is a sizable among Wikipedia editors, with some estimates suggesting women comprise only 10–15% of the editing community. While the exact figures are certainly debatable, most agree that having a disproportionate number of male editors has the potential to create—or already has created—a towards topics in which men are generally more interested. Over the years, the Wikimedia Foundation and others have endeavored to bridge the gender gap with projects such as the, the (GGTF), and various initiatives, such as the. Recently, Wikipedia editor, a participant in GGTF and other such projects, began developing a ('WikiProject Women') to create an on-wiki exclusive space for women to discuss issues, support one another, and recruit new editors. Thus far, her idea has received mixed reviews. An adopted symbol of the gender gap.

Lightbreather proposed WikiProject Women because in current wiki discussion venues, it is likely that men will comprise a significant percentage of discussants. Moreover, discussions descend into vitriol rather frequently, which women often find off-putting. If Wikipedia is ever going to close its gender gap, she reasons, women must play a central role, and to do that, they need a space to discuss issues where they can guarantee hearing predominantly women's voices. She told the Signpost: “ No single event made me start this.

I simply got fed up with the hostility that I experienced and observed in many discussions and edit summaries. The antagonistic Wikipedia editing environment is one that most men (and some women) seem to embrace (or at least to endure), whereas most women (and some men) do not. ” Lightbreather points to the 's decision on the as an example of the need to include more women's voices in Wikipedia discussions. That case was criticized by many both on and off Wikipedia (including columnist David Auerbach; see previous Signpost ) for site-banning a female editor while issuing lesser sanctions to her two male antagonists.

Lightbreather believes that a committee with a different gender composition would have reached a different conclusion: “ If there had been six men and six women (instead of 11 men and 1 woman), on that committee, either a) the one known woman editor who was banned would have had two known men editors for company, or b) the one known woman and the known men would have all been spared. However, what happened was c) the one known woman editor was banned and the known men were spared. ” Lightbreather cites from entitled 'Why Women Need Women-Only Networks' to explain why men agreeing to let women have space to flesh out ideas collaboratively alone is not sufficient. 12 March 2012 21 February 2011 21 February 2011 agreed, commenting, 'What is clear (you only need to look at the GGTF discussions in the [English Wikipedia]) is that there should be a space where women can hear themselves talk and think about the gender gap without constantly having men take potshots at them, or otherwise undermining their efforts.' Lightbreather has created she calls the ' as a test area for her larger idea.

As of press time, a. Notably,, who was topic banned from discussing Wikipedia gender issues on the English Wikipedia as a result of the Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case, wondered how this proposal would differ from previous ones to include only certain editors in a certain area of the encyclopedia: 'I recall that in the not too distant past a project that selected membership on the basis of editors having written a / was deleted,' he wrote. 'The argument was that every page should be open to everyone to contribute to. What's the difference here?' As for the discussion on Meta, although some support has been enthusiastic, much of it has been tempered. For example, said, 'Unless there is a way to address the underlying cultural issues that make Wikipedia such a hostile environment for women, this feels like trying to find a bandaid solution to a gunshot wound.

Something needs to be done though, and if a bandaid is it, then a bandaid it shall be.' Opposition to the proposal is largely three-pronged. One view is that the proposal subverts the notion of equality of men and women. German Wikipedia user Martina Nolte wrote 'The proposal is an attempt to enforce positive discrimination in favor of female contributors, and is highly polarizing and deviding [ ] the community.' Meanwhile, an anonymous editor commented that the proposal 'is antithetical to the notion that women are equal to men,' to which Lightbreather responded that the comment 'oversimplifies a complex problem.' The second recurring view is that it implies a direct contradiction with the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and will not improve gender relations anyway.

Said, 'Wikipedia is largely governed by the idea that anyone in the community can contribute to discussions; splitting off discussions to a women-only forum, in which men cannot contribute, comment, or offer constructive criticism is not something that fosters a community-driven environment. We need to find solutions that help integrate women into the community, not segregate.' Lightbreather disagrees: “ I think it has more potential to advance the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When I first started actively editing on Wikipedia, I would have loved such a space. I desperately searched for women and found very few. I finally found a mature, woman mentor, and that saved me from quitting the project altogether.

” The most prevalent view in opposition to the proposal centers on the, which states, 'The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.' Several editors reasoned that an area banning homosexuals, Muslims, or another group from a particular area on the encyclopedia would be preposterous, so banning men from a particular area of the encyclopedia would be equally preposterous. Lightbreather said she would be fine with other minorities having their own spaces on Wikipedia as well. She went on to suggest, 'First, let us try to recruit and retain more women editors.

If relations worsen, let us have a discussion about it that is not dominated by men or women.' Presently, the idea remains in the idea formulation stage, but come April when the individual engagement grant review committee begins to accept applications, Lightbreather plans to submit one for her idea. Although most agree the gender gap is a problem on Wikipedia, only time will tell if Lightbreather's uniquely drastic proposal is part of the solution. Editor's note: The author of this article has previously corresponded with the interview subject, including during a recent arbitration enforcement discussion. A user on professing to be a Wikipedia administrator, redacted to comply with A few months ago, now-banned editor to an attack page he had one of his friends write about me. In turn, this page linked to Fergus' and accounts—the latter a privately owned clearing house for employers to post jobs, search for freelance professionals, and solicit proposals.

It was there that I discovered one of the darker sides of Wikipedia. On Elance, hundreds of posted jobs offer money to edit Wikipedia. Companies like the now-former Wiki-PR, which was involved in a that encompassed hundreds to thousands of Wikipedia accounts and pages, will pay for articles about specific individuals and entities.

Others ask to add links to drive traffic to other websites, and yet others are jobs to remove negative content. These jobs appear to be thriving, with tens of thousands of dollars changing hands each month. With a little bit of looking around, it's fairly easy to determine which account wrote what content and for how much. A number of patterns became clear. Most individuals are undeclared paid editors. Many use a single sockpuppet for one or two jobs and then move on to the next account. One editor stated that they are an experienced Wikipedia administrator.

Some were better at hiding their activities than others, with certain editors responsible for a trail of blocked accounts. Elance is just one of many e-commerce sites through which this sort of business is being transacted.

I've been grappling with a couple of questions since. 26 February 2014 19 February 2014 20 November 2013 9 October 2013 various So what is wrong with paid editing? The first thing we are risking is our reputation.

Wikipedia is seen as an independent source. If companies and individuals can pay to have content written about them, their businesses, or their products, we are no longer independent. In October 2013, after the Wiki-PR revelations, the Wikimedia Foundation a press release stating that undisclosed paid editing 'violates numerous site policies and guidelines, including prohibitions against sockpuppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest' and 'is prohibited by our.' Jimmy Wales has similarly stated that ' to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space'. The next and more difficult question is if we disapprove of this activity, can we do anything about it? The issue of appears to be fairly straightforward to address.

A has been set up to list all edits that remove a dead-link tag. This allows verification that spam-links are not being added as a replacement—a frequent tactic of spammers. Discussions are ongoing with respect to using to solve the dead-link issue once and for all. The owner is interested in having us take over its management, but I have been unable to determine whether the movement is interested in taking it on. One of the companies involved in adding links to Wikipedia articles,, is using the Wikipedia logo to promote itself, so WMF Legal and Community Affairs may consider addressing what appears to be breach of our logo trademark.

The issue of those who are paid to write articles about individuals and companies is harder to address. This editing is usually done through 'disposable' accounts, and even if discovered, the content is sometimes kept. Thus we are left to presume that the person behind the account is still paid for their work.

Although there has been talk of loosening up our attitudes towards disclosed paid editing, it's likely that for most of those involved, the incentives are less than the hazards of losing their anonymity. It would mostly just expose their work to greater scrutiny, as currently much of the time it goes undetected, which those who are attempting to promote individuals and companies prefer. One of FergusM1970's last comments on Wikipedia was for a fee, seemingly oblivious to the irony of this. His suggested method would have been to patrol the major sites and request that they take down Wikipedia-related jobs.

The policies of two of the larger websites in question do not allow jobs that violate the terms of service of other websites. I emailed them inquiring about this possibility and they agreed to take down the first user I reported. Now to look at doing this on a larger scale.

Another possible measure would be to keep a list of sockmasters known to be involved in paid editing, regularly run on their accounts to identify further socks, and delete their additions. Other methods could comprise posting fake jobs on these sites to identify people offering editing services; however, this could be viewed as dishonest and thus likely not the best idea. How long this approach would be effective is unclear, as those involved would probably figure out ways to avoid detection. We could also look at efforts to generate bad press for the individuals and companies who use these services.

The media, however, would likely get bored of this type of story. So who are their customers?

According to FergusM1970, some of his clients included academic, composer,, the, and the. About half of the issues I detected had already been dealt with, the accounts either being blocked or the content deleted. Whether that is good or bad I'm unsure. The cases I've picked up are likely the easier ones to detect, such as this obviously promotional addition to the article for the airline: I have a much longer list; however, I need to first clarify whether providing this evidence on Wikipedia is allowed under the Foundation's terms of use and the English Wikipedia's policies. This is not the first time that Wikipedia has come across an extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy. The Signpost in October 2013 that 'An investigation by the English Wikipedia community into suspicious edits and sockpuppet activity has led to astonishing revelations that Wiki-PR, a multi-million-dollar US-based company, has created, edited, or maintained several thousand Wikipedia articles for paying clients using a sophisticated array of concealed user accounts.' A year and a half later, it is clear that neither the Foundation nor the English Wikipedia has worked out how to address this issue.

The first account associated with Wiki-PR,, appeared during my recent investigations, suggesting that they may still be in business. While disclosed paid editing is a lesser issue, it is not a panacea. The problem I have with disclosed paid editing is that it often turns the attention of the core community from working on articles of higher importance to ones of lower importance. For example, editor previously engaged in on the article, which resulted in much greater involvement than the subject deserves., via Havas Lynx Medical,, and others are interested in providing this sort of service for their clients or themselves. While we can handle some, does not have the ability to handle hundreds of daily requests. Over the last few weeks I have looked for interest in dealing with the dozens of clandestine paid editors I have stumbled on.

Is anyone willing to take on the issue of paid editing? Even though the Foundation undisclosed paid editing, it is unclear who is supposed to enforce this and what mechanisms we have to detect it. The WMF's informed me that they do not have the staff to take this on and hopes the community will become involved in enforcement.

The English Wikipedia's feels that they have no role in handling paid advocacy at this point in time—paid editing is not prohibited by policy, as they responded to me by email. On-wiki remedies are hampered by our community policies. It is currently unclear if an editor is allowed to openly discuss specific cases on the encyclopedia. Our guideline may state that editors should 'not edit Wikipedia in the interests of your external relationships', but the policy takes precedence, and it does not clarify if we are allowed to link to external sites suspected of being involved in paid advocacy.

An seeking to clarify one aspect of this issue is ongoing. So is Wikipedia for sale? Unfortunately, the answer currently appears to be yes—. The views expressed in these are those of the authors only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the.

Editors wishing to submit their own op-ed should the Signpost 's editor. No, not that. Media fallout continues from the January 29 decision in the mammoth, which had 27 named parties, including this author, and resulted in sanctions against 13 of them. Initial media coverage of the case consisted of short pieces that mostly reiterated the contents of a in which contained some factual inaccuracies. Now that the case has been closed, some media outlets have published longer stories examining the matter more closely. Reporter Caitlin Dewey wrote ' (January 29) in the Post's digital and Internet culture blog, The Intersect. Dewey pointed out a distinction that many Wikipedians complained was missing from media coverage of the case, that the Committee was not deciding on the merits of the or the contents of that article, but merely 'judging the behavior of the site editors'.

Of that behavior, she wrote: “ Anti-Gamergaters claimed that their sworn enemies were “weaponizing Wikipedia” to promote a misogynist agenda and slander women in the gaming industry. Pro-Gamergaters identified five feminist Wikipedia editors whom they accused of bias and wanted driven off the site. Both sides alleged that organized factions plotted how to manipulate Wikipedia off-site, and then dove into the encyclopedia to carry out their ideological campaigns. These accusations should sound fairly familiar because they’re issues Wikipedia faces with some regularity. On a site anybody can edit, how do you keep pranksters, libelists, PR firms and motivated ideologues from dropping in and mucking everything up? More pressingly, perhaps, how do you get all these different people to agree on one version of a controversial story?

” She added that 'the decision was a highly visible test of whether the Web site that millions of people turn to for facts can actually present facts in a fair and neutral way' and pointed out that to many, the Committee failed this test. She noted that critics 'accused the [Arbitration Committee] of failing to support women more aggressively, an issue that goes straight to Wikipedia’s lengthy struggle against.' Dewey concludes: “ Solving that problem was, of course, not ArbCom’s explicit mandate. And members of the group are hopeful that by censuring some of the worst, most biased offenders, they’ll inch the Gamergate page—and all of Wikipedia—closer to objective truth. But given all the ongoing drama, one wonders if there can ever be such a thing.

Perhaps consensus doesn’t always work. Maybe even very well-meaning people can’t transcend their own inherent, unvoiced biases to the point of absolute objectivity. Maybe human knowledge has its limits, even when it’s summed.

11 March 2015 11 February 2015 4 February 2015 4 February 2015 28 January 2015 28 January 2015 24 December 2014 In, Andy Cush wrote ' (January 30). Cush noted that intital media coverage of the case focused on the fact that 'Despite the organization's repeated insistence that it is not taking sides in the conflict, it ruled to punish five editors who were specifically targeted by a coordinated Gamergate attack.'

As a result 'Wikipedia has launched a full-scale charm offensive.reassuring readers that Wikipedia remains committed to civility and a neutral point of view'. The fact that the decision sanctioned parties on both sides of the dispute has been held up as evidence that the decision was an equitable one, but according to Cush 'the parity is precisely the problem.' This is because Gamergate supporters targeted five Wikipedia editors in what was called. All five were sanctioned by the Committee, with two topic banned and one site banned.

Cush wrote, 'Whether the committee knew it or not, it was expressly doing the bidding of a group of Gamergaters who plotted to take control of the Wikipedia article Operation Five Horsemen was a resounding success.' Cush wrote: “. The Gamergate dispute is not a case of two opposing but equally reasonable parties in search of a compromise.supporters of Gamergate have fashioned Wikipedia into a weapon to be used against their targets.coordinating to revive dormant Wikipedia accounts for the sole purpose of making Gamergate edits. The so-called anti-Gamergate editors have fought to make sure that the movement is represented as it actually exists—a campaign against women and feminism in gaming under the guise of an ill-defined crusade about 'ethics.' Wrestlemania 16 Download Free.

One side is populated by people who are working in good faith to make Wikipedia a more accurate and useful resource; the other by malicious trolls. Each was reprimanded equally. ” Cush warns of “ one of Wikipedia's most fundamental flaws: aside from the purely democratic groupthink of its editors, no mechanism exists for governing the site's content. If enough web-savvy pseudoscientists decided tomorrow to use Wikipedia to espouse the merits of phrenology, or a racist campaign in support of eugenics flooded the site, there's not much Wikipedia could do about it.

Good editors would work against the crazies, of course, and if ArbCom found evidence of conduct violations it could punish the interlopers that way, but there's no system in place for Wikipedia's administrators to say, Your ideas are wrong, and they're not welcome here. ” Cush compares the situation to that of the, which was taken over by 'a group of far-right reactionaries' in 2013. The Wikimedia Foundation took no action and the country's Education Minister openly discouraged students from using the encyclopedia. It should be noted that these articles cited the work of two critics who have been involved in the Gamergate dispute on Wikipedia. Dewey cited commentator David Auerbach (), who had a long-running public spat with one key party,, one of the 'Five Horsemen' who was indefinitely site banned as a result of the case. Both Dewey and Cush cited Mark Bernstein (), who was topic banned from Gamergate articles by this author and whose critical of Wikipedia were used as a source for the Guardian article and have been frequently cited in media coverage and commentary on this case.

Muhammad images continue to draw controversy. Paul Dibble's Swimmers in Space on display in front of the • WikiGnomes of the world, unite and take over: In, author (February 3) Wikipedia editor and his obsessive and quixotic quest to rid Wikipedia of the ungrammatical phrase '.

Giraffedata has amassed over 47 thousand edits since 2007 in pursuit of this goal and is one of the. Giraffedata's brother also got into the act in 2012, removing instances of the phrase 'based around'. • Objection: In, Alok Prasanna Kumar of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (February 3) of Wikipedia in citations by Indian courts. The has not cited Wikipedia since 2011, though it continues to be cited by Indian. Kumar advocated that courts 'abandon references to Wikipedia as an authority on anything.' • Disappointing Future Hearts: Alex Gaskarth of (February 3) to that appeared in the Wikipedia article for his band's upcoming album. The rumor was that Calum Hood and Luke Hemmings of had participated in writing the album.

• Philippine history: The (February 2) on the to document historical sites in the country. • Nigerian history: In the, (February 1) the difficulties he had in creating Wikipedia articles on Nigerian sports figures of the 1970s and 80s due to the lack of reliable sources available digitally. He suggests Nigerians rise 'to the challenge of properly documenting our history' through methods like digitizing Nigerian newspapers. • 'I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member': In ' (January 29), profiles and their efforts to fight. • Editathon: complains (January 29), listing some topics that will hopefully be improved at the February 7 at the. The (February 2) Schomburg director about the editathon. • Book review: (January 29) Thomas Leitch's 2014 book Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority and Liberal Education in the Digital Age.

• Reliable sources: Courtney Johnston, Director of the, writes ' (January 28), offering key web and print resources museum staffers used to create over 70 articles on. • Never Tear You Apart: offers ' (January 28). • • • • • • • • • By The appears to dominate the Report this week, with leading the Report for another week, the at #3, and our #2 slot filled by the wrestling event. A lot of other American topics including American football fill the list and the greater, this week, though India contributed the new film at #13 and its annual at #16 in the Top 25. For the full top 25 list, see. See for an explanation of any exclusions.

For the week of January 25 to 31, 2015, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the, were: Rank Article Class Views Image Notes 1 2,653,157. The namesake of the. Potential featured picture, if I can figure out exactly what's photograph damage and what's there. • ( by ) or is a species of woody shrub native to and grows as a small tree to five metres (15 ft) high. This species, to the area arround, was named in honour of English botanist. Banksiae are a group of plants that have spectacular that are used in garden design.

Like most banksia, they have yellow, brownish, or orange flower spikes which look like. The flowers smell like honey and are dripping with nectar, making them especially attractive not only for gardens, but for birds and other organism such as the,, honey bees, wasps, and ants. Like a, it is killed by bushfire and regenerates from its seed!

• ( by ) was a two-ship of built for the (IJN) in the mid-1890s. A visit by two to Japan in 1891 forced the IJN to rethink their strategy of employing 'cheap torpedo boats and commerce raiding to offset expensive, heavily armoured ships'. The IJN ordered a pair of battleships from the United Kingdom, built to a design, as the Japanese 'lacked the technology and capability to construct its own battleships.'

There was great difficulty in securing funding; after three attempts by the to pass the funding measure failed, they finally passed it following an offer by the to fund the ships himself. The two battleships Fuji and Yashima were delivered by February 1898. They participated in the and in further operations in the. Yashima sunk on 14 May 1904 after hitting a. Fuji survived the war and was converted to a in 1910 and an unarmed floating barracks in 1922. Damaged by American aircraft in July 1945, Fuji eventually capsized, and she was cut up for scrap in 1948. • ( by ) (1908–1994) was an American politician who served as and of.

He is the only governor in state history born in, despite the fact that, the, is the state's most populous city. Wetherby was elevated to the position of governor in 1950 after Governor resigned to take a seat in the.

Wetherby increased funding for education and government benefits by allocating money from the state's budget surplus. For this he was acclaimed, and he won the 1951 election to serve a full four-year term as governor. During his term, Wetherby authorized a massive road-building campaign, and encouraged the peaceful desegregation of the state's educational system.

Played the title role in Yash Raj Films' most successful film of the 1980s:. • ( by ) This is a movie that, frankly, makes me a bit uncomfortable. It's about how the first successful drug,, is poisonous, and how you should instead use some random crap given to you at a dodgy Mexican clinic. While it's apparently a very well-shot, well-acted film, following its claimed good idea for how to survive will probably get you killed. As I said: it makes me uncomfortable. However, it won three and a host of other accolades, as documented in this list, so it must have something going for it. • ( by ) is a game played between two teams of eleven players in which a bowler bowls a ball at three sticks.

On top of these sticks are two short sticks; the bowler's trying to knock these off, but in front of them is a batter who tries to hit the ball. The rest of the bowler's team are standing around, waiting to catch the ball. If any of a series of arcane events occur, such as the batter getting their leg in the wrong place or the spare batter running when they're not supposed to, the bowler shouts 'Howzat', and an official in a white coat points their finger at the batter and makes them walk off. This game lasts several days, and is called a because it's a test of the spectator's stamina. As of 2014, the have played three of these Test matches since their first appearance in 1998, and a number of other international matches. Twenty women have played Test matches for Pakistan. • ( by ) American actor and director has had a prolific career on film, television, and stage.

His film debut was as an uncredited character in the drama in 1964. Freeman also made his stage debut in the same year by appearing in the musical. He followed this with further stage appearances in The Dozens (1969), Exhibition (1969), and the musical (1970–71). He played various characters on the (1971–77). Freeman subsequently appeared in the films in 1984 and in 1985 before making his breakthrough with 1987's In the 1990s, he was cast in numerous films, including the adventure film (1991) opposite, drama (1994) with, psychological thriller (1995), historical drama (1997), crime thriller (1997), and science fiction disaster film (1998).

His role in The Shawshank Redemption earned him a second nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actor at The 67th Academy Awards. Morgan Freeman's voice is commercially valuable; the actor is his 'official voice double' and has confused British TV audiences by appearing as 'More Than Freeman' in insurance adverts. • ( by ) (YRF) is an Indian entertainment company, established by in 1970, that and motion pictures. The company has produced 65 films, including three upcoming projects, and one film.

YRF started a film distribution business in 1997 and, in addition to distributing their own productions, the company has handled the domestic and international distribution of 34 films from other companies. YRF's first release came in 1973 with the Chopra-directed, a drama about, starring,, and. The company had four more releases in the 1970s, including the family drama and the action film, both of which starred. YRF's sole commercial success in the 1980s was the -starring romantic drama. • ( by ) (English: Story) is a 2012 directed and co-produced. The film stars as the protagonist, and features,, and in supporting roles.

The film was edited by, with the cinematography provided by Setu. Set in the city of during the festivities of, Kahaani follows the life of a pregnant woman, Vidya Bagchi, in search of her husband, a man whose existence is denied by the people she encounters. Made on a budget of ₹80 million (US$1.2 million), Kahaani was released on 9 March 2012 and grossed over ₹1.04 billion (US$16 million) worldwide after a 50 day theatrical run.

The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction and the performance of the lead actress. As of 2014, the film has won 28 awards.

• • • • • • • • • By I had hoped to ease into this new role, but alas I seem to have picked the worst time of year to start reporting on the Arbitration Committee's business! I thought I had a good appreciation of the arbitrators' workload, but I now have an entirely new grasp of just how many pages they have to monitor and how closely. There are case requests, clarification requests, and motions—at least two of which are permanently near the top of my watchlist (a watchlist which includes plenty of busy pages)—the committee noticeboard and its talk page, and then there are the open cases—each with their evidence and workshop pages (and their respective talk pages!). That's before we even consider the various private mailing lists to which we mere mortals are not privy. The number of rabbits of which to keep track is dizzying.

This has been another busy fortnight for the committee. At the time of writing, one case has been closed, two cases remain open, another is undergoing a review, and four clarification or amendment requests remain open. Additionally, the committee has been attending to various other business including housekeeping motions and the beginning of a round of functionary appointments. This fortnight's business Cases After two months, the GamerGate case, the largest and most complex in recent memory finally reached its conclusion shortly before the publication of last week's Signpost. That issue's ' covered the case in detail, but to summarise: ArbCom has authorised discretionary sanctions for the broad topic area of '(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] (c) any persons associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.' The intent of this is to prevent disruption from this dispute spreading to similar topics.

It also gives administrators broad powers to impose blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions on any editor who does not behave appropriately after being made aware of the discretionary sanctions. In addition, 13 individual editors were sanctioned, with sanctions ranging from admonishments to topic bans (with the same scope as the discretionary sanctions) and a single siteban (passed at the last moment due to continuing disruption). The case attracted media attention in its final stages, and since its closure has been the subject of lengthy and heated discussion on of the committee's noticeboard. According to the, 'when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (basically the site's Supreme Court), issued a final ruling on Gamergate on Wednesday, they weren't merely slapping the wrists of the bickering few still obsessed with 'ethics in video games'; rather, the decision was a highly visible test of whether the Web site that millions of people turn to for facts can actually present facts in a fair and neutral way.'

The Post article, which was illustrated with a screenshot of the warning notices at the top of the GamerGate talk page, accurately pointed out that ArbCom's ruling were not on GamerGate itself or the content of the relevant Wikipedia article, but rather on the behaviour of the editors involved and likened arbitrators to 'referees at a particularly brutal soccer game: They can dish out red cards and penalties to individual players, but they don't actually decide which side should win'. (For more on the Post's article, please see.) Meanwhile, the article is being heavily edited, its lengthy spell of full protection (locking so that only administrators can edit) having recently come to an end. Arbitrator told the Signpost last week that he expected it would be a 'week or two' before the effects of the decision started to be fully felt. Further developments will be reported in the 'News and Notes' and 'In the media' sections in coming weeks. At press time, the arbitrators' proposed decision in this case was expected imminently. The workshop phase officially concluded on 30 January, though some discussion is still going on.

This is not nearly so large a case as GamerGate, so arbitrators and clerks seem less concerned with closing off discussions (in the GamerGate case, parties added evidence and workshop proposals minutes before the deadline, forcing the deadlines to be extended to allow other parties to respond to allegations against them, and the pages had to be fully protected to enforce the revised deadlines). The case concerns allegation which have been floating around for a year now, namely that Wifione has been conducting a subtle but persistent campaign to promote an Indian business school and to denigrate its competitors, including by manipulating biographical articles of people associated with the institutions.

Extensive evidence has been presented by half a dozen editors, and Wifione has presented a five-thousand-word rebuttal. In the workshop, several editors have made proposals, all of which revolve around different levels of restrictions and sanctions for Wifione, with the exception of Wifione's own proposals, which advocate for sanctions against several editors making the allegations. The target date for the proposed decision is 5 February.

This is another large case regarding sexuality, which appears to be the hot-button topic on the wiki at the moment. Although a dozen parties are listed, the evidence phase was due to close at the time of writing, yet only five editors had presented evidence. Despite the apparently broad scope of the case, the parties appear to be primarily concerned with litigating on a long-running edit war on the article, although the issues appear to have spread to some extent to similar articles about other denominations. The workshop is open until 11 February, and the proposed decision is due on 18 February. This is a slightly unorthodox case. The was litigated in the middle of 2013 and closed in September of that year. The main party to the case, was prohibited from 'adding or removing infoboxes'.

Since then, there have been multiple enforcement requests surrounding Pingsonthewing's participation at Templates for Discussion and in other fora regarding the technical implementation of infoboxes; these in turn have led to multiple clarification requests due to what many editors felt was the ambiguous wording of the remedy. The latest request suggested resolving the perceived ambiguity by adding the word 'to articles' to the end of the remedy, but arbitrators failed to reach a decision on this request.

To break the stalemate, a review has been opened to answer the question of whether the remedy is fit for purpose. Evidence is being accepted until 10 February. This space has covered some more ebullient projects recently -,, and, to name a few. However, we must sometimes remember to look at the other end of the spectrum, such as this WikiProject where a small band of dedicated editors seek to improve articles relating to a less lively topic. If you haven't yet guessed, this week's focus is. With 38 participants, the project, founded in 2009, is on the small side, but it is certainly active and looks after a large range of articles on all things death-y.

From morgues, legal documents, and zombies to autopsies, cremations, and statistics, the topic is a sombre but necessary part of life that nobody outside of the 'business' really talks too much about. To find out more, we spoke to the project founder, along with and. What motivated you to join WikiProject Death? As it is such a morbid-sounding topic, it seems an unusual project to join. • Boneyard90: I am an. Some of my specialties include,, and. These are all fields in which understanding the state of human remains is of paramount interest.

It seemed my professional and personal interests overlapped with articles in the project, and I became involved in WikiProject Death fairly soon after I started editing Wikipedia. • Cloptonson: My interest is primarily historical, and I was editing pages under the project before I joined the project. I contribute details of notable people who were buried, cremated or commemorated at particular cemeteries, crematoria and military memorials; cemeteries, graves or memorials to the missing; give details of burial or cremation places to biographical articles; mention known death causes and discuss circumstances where the death is in complicated or disputed circumstances.

Visiting churchyards and cemeteries has been one of my lifetime hobbies to look for famous or unusual graves or memorials. • Geniac: I created the project when I saw that there was some discussion around about the idea, but those discussions never quite got to the point of actually starting one.

IIRC, there was a hangup regarding what the project scope could possibly be. Now in it's fifth year, we've found plenty of articles to take under our wing. Have you contributed to any of the project's forty-one or 113 articles, and are these sort of articles generally easier or harder to promote than other subjects? • Boneyard90: I significantly expanded, which gets about 8,000+ views per month, and promoted it as a article and then on to GA status. • Cloptonson: 'Featured' – I have done some rearranging on the which also gave excellent detailed material to significantly expand on.

'Good' – I have done similar work on the and, as well as on the. • Geniac: Unlike some other members who have done an incredible job in content production, I'm more into the structure, scope and organisation of the project and covered articles. Can you explain your scope: what sort of articles qualify to be tagged under this project and what areas you don't cover? • Boneyard90: The front page sums it up well. Cemeteries, massacres, concepts or beliefs related to death, and people noted for expanding our understanding of death or had some death so notable that it has its own article. • Geniac: The project scope has expanded over time to include a wide variety of topics including medical and physical aspects of death, social customs, capital punishment, grief, life insurance, massacres, cemeteries, plane crashes, the afterlife and people known for their role in deaths like. We've also hammered out topics that are out of scope such as wars, terrorist attacks, earthquakes, serial killers and people who just happen to now be dead.

An eerie, dusty coffin in. Exactly the kind of pictures that may be relevant! The 'Suicide task force' is a named subdivision of this project. What specifically does that cover, and is there very much activity within the task force compared to WikiProject Death as a whole? • Boneyard90: The Suicide Task Force covers any topic that deals with suicide, not only the concepts, but other acts or organisations that are related to suicide.

This was a separate wikiproject that had lost some membership in which one editor too the initiative to annexe it into WP:Death. It made sense, especially as tagging an article for both projects seemed redundant. What is your most popular topic or article, measured by reader page views? Should it be a project aim to improve your highest visibility articles? • Cloptonson: I have not yet produced any articles on any topic, my work so far has been editing existing ones.

It is easy to squeeze editing into spare time from a full time job which is a 40-mile round commute and domestic activity. I may graduate to production later. • Geniac: Probably the highest view-count would be the article (or whatever year it happens to be) at around views a day. The main-topic article gets around views a day.

Gets around a day. That one and are currently our only two FA-class, High-importance articles. How can a new member help today? • Boneyard90: A new member can help mostly by expanding existing articles that fall short of B-class or checking, finding, and adding sources to articles where they are lacking. • Cloptonson: A new member can help by expanding existing articles on cemeteries that are at stub stage and adding names of (preferably with existing Wikipedia articles that can be linked) for listing as notable burials, cremations or commemorations. • Geniac: A new member can help by expanding articles; we have to work on.

They can tag article talk pages with the project banner. Also see our Articles needing attention section on the main project page for a list of articles that need work. • • • • • • • • • By Editor's note: the Signpost has arranged to mirror from the Meta-Wiki to supplement the long-form tech coverage in our infrequent Technology report. Please let us know what you think of this or any of our new features in the. Latest from the Wikimedia technical community.

Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Are available. Problems • There was a security issue on Wikimedia Labs.

Many Labs tools were down after the issue was fixed. Software changes this week • The of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 3. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 4 (). • The 'Save page' button in the VisualEditor toolbar is now blue rather than green. This is the same as on the mobile site.

• You can now edit pages on the draft namespace with VisualEditor on the Russian Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia. You can ask to get VisualEditor for a namespace on your wiki. When your community agrees, ask in Phabricator. Prepared by and posted by • • • • •.

Green-curled Samarkand! City of, the Earth Shaker; before that city of, leader of the Mongols; and before that the sporting ground of, who murdered within its gates his old friend,, when both were drunk with wine three thousand years ago, Samarkand, flourishing center of Arabic culture in the twelfth century; seat of the ancient observatory of; golden name to the Venetian merchants in those Middle Ages of silks from and spices from Samarkand; lovely song-city of the Oriental poets; city of the turquoise domes - Samarkand! Green-curled Samarkand.' Vcardorganizer 1 2 Keygen For Mac.

Success Stories ADVANCE - JAVA I. Introduction 2.

Jdbc Architecture 3. Types of Drivers 4. ResultSet 1.Read Only ResultSet 2.Updatable ResultSet 3.Forward Only ResultSet 4.Scrollable ResultSet 6. PreparedStatement 7. Connection Modes 8.

Batch Updations 10. CallableStatement 11.

BLOB & CLOB II.SERVLETS 1. Introduction 2. Web application Architecture 3. Http Protocol & Http Methods 4. Web Server & Web Container 5.

Servlet Interface 6. GenericServlet 7. HttpServlet 8. Servlet Life Cycle 9.

ServletConfig 10. ServletContext 11. Servlet Communication 1. Servlet-Browser communication 1.

SendRedirect 2. Web-component Communication 1. Include 3.Servlet-Applet Communication 12. Session Tracking Mechanisms 1.

HttpSession 2. URL-Rewriting 4. Hidden-Form Fields 13.Filters & Wrappers 14.Listeners 15.Web-Security III.JSP 1. Introduction 2. Jsp LifeCycle 3. Jsp Implicit Objects & Scopes 4.

Jsp Directives 1.page 2.include 3.taglib 5. Jsp Scripting Elements 1.declaratives 2.scriptlets 3.expressions 6. Jsp Actions 1.Standard Actions 1. UseBean tag 2. SetProperty tag 3. GetProperty tag 4. Include tag 5.

Forward tag 6. Plug-in tag 8. Params tag 9. Fallback tag 10. Directives tag 11. Scriptlet tag 12. expression tag 2.Custom Actions 1. Classic Tags 2.

Simple Tags 7. JSTL & Tag Library IV. Oracle Copyright @ durgasoft.com.