Xforce Not Admin Wrong Version
Chanelle Glugla
The Wrong Version is the version of a page that is protected during an edit war. The Wrong Version is biased, nationalistic, libellous, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikimedia projects in general. There are no reports of an administrator ever having protected the "right" version.
If a page you are working on is protected on The Wrong Version, remember that it is essential that you inform the administrator who protected it that they protected The Wrong Version. You should point out the dreadful consequences of the page remaining on The Wrong Version, and insist they immediately revert to The Right Version. If they blatantly refuse, it is recommended that you ask for them to be de-sysopped. In addition, complaints should be made about the state of the page on en:Wikipedia:Protection policy, the article's talk page, the talk page of the admin who protected it and en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You could also try emailing the admin concerned, or unconcerned admins who you think might like to know about this dreadful occurrence. Another excellent idea is to contact Jimbo on his talk page and ask him to fix it. And of course, don't forget the mailing lists; by cross-posting to any list that looks remotely useful you will leave a favorable impression with as many people as possible. Some legal threats or lawyer letters are sometimes advisable; the FBI, Amnesty International, the European Court of Justice or the Roman Rota might also find your complaint really interesting.
Remember that it is likely the admin who protected The Wrong Version did this out of personal malice against you. At the very least, always remember that no admin ever protects a page unless they are involved in the dispute and prefer the content in one version over another. The last person to revert to The Wrong Version is almost always the person who requests protection. If not, they are a member of the same tag team.
All discussion that might resolve the dispute and make moot the discussion of whether the page has been protected at The Wrong Version must immediately be stopped in order to argue that The Right Version be restored. If you can find obscure policies that show how wrong the protected version is, these should be brought to the community's attention. If Jimbo remarked on the issue at hand, or made a post 15 years ago to Usenet that seems vaguely relevant, be sure to cite it. Equally, you should try to prove that the version protected is actually the work of a vandal.
First, it's very important that you write me a minimum of 6 pages of text explaining and defending the version that you prefer. The more tedious the details, the better. I'm specifically keenly interested in the names of obscure rivers in Germany, er, I mean Poland, er, I mean Prussia. Also, be sure to write to me about the shape of bigfoot's head, I really am the person to make a decision about that.
Second, everyone knows that I make it a routine practice to force articles to read exactly the way that you like. I also ban longtime users and sysops whenever I feel like, just based on the say-so of people just like you. So be sure to ask for that.
Fourth, if you happen to know that I'm personally politically sympathetic to your point of view, feel free to call your opponents names. For example, since I'm generally sympathetic to Israel, feel free to call anyone who has written anything critical of Israel a "Nazi". I'll get so excited that I'll probably ban them. Heck, I might even write new code in the software to only let you and people you approve edit the pages!
And finally, if for some insane reason I don't act on your wise proposals, tell everyone that you know that Wikipedia is all a scam to make money. It's a tool of capitalist oppression. It's a liberal playground with no standards. It's based on the principles of communism. It's collectivist. It's individualist. It's useless. It's the most important thing in the world, except for me screwing it up. That'll show old Jimbo who he's messing with!
The single most effective way to override this sort of atrocious abuse of admin power is to go straight to the head of the serpent. The Cabal is the well known source of power and influence throughout all wikidom, and it is regularly acknowledged that their favor can be bought to help resolve these issues. There are a number of ways to win over the assistance of the Dark Lords of Wiki:
In case you still don't get it: page protection isn't a means of locking the "right version" of a page in place; rather, its sole purpose is to make you stop edit warring (and look: you're here, so it worked!) and start discussing the issue on the talk page. Take a deep breath, then another, then do just that, and everything will be all right.
EFT was updated on the server computer, but the remote administration interface was not updated. When connected remotely, the server version and build number shown is that of the remote administration interface, not of the server.
We are running into the issue that editors need to have the 'version administrator' role enabled in order for them to post to the default. However, this also makes it possible to edit in the default. -49AAF916-F477-4D16-...
We always make sure to tell to our editors that they have to create a version, make edits and then post, but this is sometimes forgotten by mistake. This creates wrong data in the default version, which is not what we want. There is no time and effort available for one person to check all the editors work and post it, when disabling the version adminstrator role for all of the editors.
So my idea is to create a role that allows users to post to the default db, but disable them from editing on the default version. This will result in an a workflow where editors without version adminstator privileges cannot edit the default version by mistake, but does allow them to post their edits and thus make changes to the default db (with error checking off course). This also removes the need of one person that is responsible for posting (which just isn't workable in our office).
When I encountered the same issue I created a constraint attribute rule for each feature class that prevents edits against default. It's actually a simple script (see below) and I haven't noticed any performance issues with it. The biggest drawback is viewing attributes in ArcGIS Pro when in sde.default, you are constantly reminded that you can't edit (attached image). You also have to add it to each feature class but that gives you more flexibility in case you have a feature class or table that it's valid to edit default.
Interesting in an unfortunate way. We were looking at enabling/disabling the VersionManagment privilege for our custom GISStaff role via the arcgis api for python, but sadly that option is not available as a method, only as a property of the Role and RoleManager classes.
This article helps Intune administrators understand and troubleshoot error messages when enrolling Windows devices in Microsoft Intune. See Troubleshoot device enrollment in Microsoft Intune for additional, general troubleshooting scenarios.
This section, method, or task contains steps that tell you how to modify the registry. However, serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly. Therefore, make sure that you follow these steps carefully. For added protection, back up the registry before you modify it. Then, you can restore the registry if a problem occurs.For more information about how to back up and restore the registry, read How to back up and restore the registry in Windows
You use both MDM for Microsoft 365 and Intune on the tenant. And the user who tries to enroll the device doesn't have a valid Intune license or an Office 365 license. In this situation, you may receive the following error message:
Error 80180026: "Something went wrong. Confirm you are using the correct sign-in information and that your organization uses this feature. You can try to do this again or contact your system administrator with the error code 80180026."
Cause: The Microsoft Entra user accounts in the account package (Package_GUID) for the respective provisioning package aren't allowed to join devices to Microsoft Entra ID. These Microsoft Entra accounts are automatically created when you set up a provisioning package with Windows Configuration Designer (WCD) or the Set up School PCs app. And these accounts are then used to join the devices to Microsoft Entra ID.
If you choose Selected, click Selected, and then click Add Members to add all users who can join their devices to Microsoft Entra ID. Make sure that all Microsoft Entra accounts for the provisioning package are added.
If the issue persists, check whether the same device is in two assigned groups, with each group being assigned a different Autopilot profile. If it is in two groups, determine which Autopilot profile should be applied to the device, and then remove the other profile's assignment.
Error 0x80070774: Something went wrong. Confirm you are using the correct sign-in information and that your organization uses this feature. You can try to do this again or contact your system administrator with the error code 80070774.
This issue typically occurs before the device is restarted in a Hybrid Microsoft Entra Autopilot scenario, when the device times out during the initial sign-in screen. It means that the domain controller can't be found or successfully reached because of connectivity issues. Or, the device has entered a state that can't join the domain.
Cause: The most common cause is that Microsoft Entra hybrid join is used, and the Assign user feature is configured in the Autopilot profile. Using the Assign user feature performs a Microsoft Entra join on the device during the initial sign-in screen. It puts the device in a state that can't join your on-premises domain. Therefore, the Assign user feature should only be used in standard Microsoft Entra join Autopilot scenarios. The feature shouldn't be used in Microsoft Entra hybrid join scenarios.
93ddb68554