Nicholas Knight wrote:
"Perhaps you didn't get the point from my previous email. I can create a
new email address in the time it takes me to type it out. I can also
easily whip up a script that would let me automatically catch
confirmation emails and respond appropriately without me ever seeing
them. The entire process of creating an account on Wikipedia can be
automated so that a new user could be created in a few seconds, email
confirmation or not."
Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not computers.
I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing scripts is way
above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I wonder if the
typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to realize what
you are bringing up above.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Sean Barrett wrote: "I can't speak for my fellow Cabal members, but I'll be
glad to compare my new-article count against yours."
Well, you'll probably beat me. I have not been as active over the past few
months as in the past. Plus, my articles tend to be relatively long, such as
the two that were mentioned in this article http://p2pnet.net/story/3202
(Origins of the American Civil War and Russian constitutional crisis of
1993).
Nevetheless, I am among the 100 most active users in this site's history;
and although I am not a member of your cabal, I have just as much right to
post something on this site giving you the perspective of the general
editors as you people do. And if you don't like it, I'll just do it more
frequently.
-User:172
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
I am a young journalist/historian from Rome and I am in the process of
applying for my journalists' lisence here in Italy. This requires me to
have published a certain number of articles in accredited media outlets in
order to earn my lisence. Can a contribution to either Wikipedia or Wkinews
count as such? If so, this outlet would be very useful for me as I develop
as a journalist. I have much to contribute on the subject of The Middle
East and other historical discourse. I can also translate texts from
Italian to English and vice-versa.
Thank you for your response-- any information you can provide regarding my
inquiry would be greatly appreciated!
Andrea Loquenzi
_________________________________________________________________
Personalizza MSN Messenger con sfondi e fotografie!
http://www.ilovemessenger.msn.it/
At the moment there is a growing campaign in New Zealand to change the
design of the New Zealand flag. See http://www.nzflag.com/
There is, for the moment, some information on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_New_Zealand but it's limited and I
want to expand it, in the process hopefully getting a bunch of people
involved in Wikipedia who probably otherwise wouldn't.
My question is, do you think I should simply expand
[Flag_of_New_Zealand] or should I create a new page dedicated to the
changing of the New Zealand flag design, and if the later what do you
think it should be called (is there any precedent for this type of
article)?
Thanks,
Christiaan
Two issues have recently arisen out of [[User:216.177.2.75]]'s
(=Poccil?) recent flurry of material by Transwiki from Wikipedia to
Wikisource.
1. Copyvio texts should not be transferred. In one recent situation
[[Half Caste]], a recent poem, was transferred before any discussion of
the copyright ever took place on Wikipedia. The original contributor
(rightly or wrongly) put the poem into Wikipedia, and that is where that
matter should be discussed. That is where he would (presumably) have
set up a talk page where he could be approached. For Wikisource's
purposes, the transferrer IS the contributor, and he is the one that
represents that the material is not a copyright infringement.
In another instance [[Mens Mental Health]] there was a discussion of
the copyright status on Wikipedia, which seems to have been resolved in
favour of keeping the article. It was being transferred because it was
judged to be a source text. (There is some question about whether the
author/contributor was revising the text for inclusion on Wikipedia,
which would disqualify it as a source text, but that is a secondary
issue.) Of course the GFDL allows the material to be copied, and that
permission should extend to Wikisource. The problem lies in the fact
that the Transwiki was being performed in conjunction with the Wikipedia
deletion process. The Wikipedia deletion would also have broken the
link of permissions since there would no longer be an easy access to the
discussion that clarified the copyright status. Again it is the
transferrer who should be able to deal with such questions; making the
transfer as an anonymous IP does not help that process. Wikisource
should not become a dumping ground for Wikipedia's copyvio problems.
2. The other issue has to do with the entry of the list of editors
on the talk page of a transwikied article. I understand perfectly that
this is intended to satisfy certain requirements under the GFDL. The
problem is that this is a bare list of users. This is useless without
links to what those edits really were. The copyright in source works
rests with the original author, and including works from the public
domain does not give rise to new copyrights. Public domain also takes
precedence over the GFDL which only licenses what needs to be licensed.
Some edits may be copyrightable, notably eidts to introductory
material. Other edits such as spelling corrections, format
modifications, adding convenient headings or wikifications are not
copyrightable. Wikisource needs to know exactly what was done? A
"correction" of an author's idiosyncratic spelling, for example, needs
to be documented. As a repository of source documents Wikisource also
needs to be concerned with the integrity of the text.
Ec
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:36:48 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta(a)ateist.org> wrote:
> Hi Ævar,
>
> Thank you for the elaboration.
>
> I still don't see the problem. The logo is not "unfree". It is very much
> free, and even more so than permitted by a traditional GNU license - as I
> recall it.
Well no, the problem is that it must be used to represent atheism
specifically, and could not be placed on the agnosticism article for
instance.
> I do find it ironic that companies like Microsoft that has a long tradition
> of fighting free licenses with their more commercial and restrictive
> approach, are allowed to have their logo on Wikipedia, just because they
> belong to some other commercial or "ill-replaced" category.
>
> As for the phrase "Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
> ill-replaceable image like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
> it will get deleted [..]", you might as well be telling me that the
> Microsoft logos is allowed because they are Microsoft logos and the IPU is
> not. It comes very close to telling me that the IPU logo, with the identity
> invested in it, pr. definition simply is not allowed.
That might have been a bit quick of me, what i meant that some images
are more replaceable than others while some are unattainable under a
free licence, like the images on past events such as the Tiananmen
Square protests of 1989.
Make no mistake, we're currently seeking replacement for *all* our
none-free images, but since we have a large pile to go through it's
best to start at the simple things, like images of everyday objects or
not-so-notable subjects.
> The way I interpret all this, is that I now have 2 options:
>
> 1. Define the IPU logo as a product, so that it would be strictly commercial
> and thus belong to a different set of rules.
>
> 2. Alter the logo license to allow it to be used for whatever purpose, and
> thus totally obliterate the identity for which it was specifically designed.
>
> Neither of the above is fair to the general idea of the IPU logo, and both
> would be very unfair (if not legally impossible by now) because there are
> people out there that has adopted the logo on the current license - and for
> what it represents. So I *cannot* alter the license by now, and based on the
> explanation that I've been given so far, this is luckily not something that
> I have any reason to regret.
Well actually you can, the copyright holder (you) can re-issue his or
her work under other licences at any time, all you would have to say
is "i grant permission to use this image under the GFDL" and it would
be so.
However since it's pretty clear at this point that you have no desire
to do so the purpose of this email is to better explain and elaborate
on my intentions and what i meant.
> Because...
>
> We are talking about a free encyclopedia service that actively wants to
> alter the identity of the very object it sets out to document. It even wants
> to purge itself from facts of reality that does not conform to some dogma of
> how the reality "should" be like. (It gives me associations to when Libya
> removed certain countries from the World Map *LOL*) These matters can hardly
> be to be a desirable attributes of a media type from whom, one should be
> able to expect objectivity.
>
> As far as I understand you, this is not your doing ;-) You're merely
> relaying some facts to me and I'm glad that you brought this matter to my
> attention. Thanks.
>
> I will cc this mail correspondence to the mailing list mail address you
> provided to me, hoping that this matter can be settled in a prudent and
> rational way. Should this process, in contrary to my expectations, result in
> the logo being removed, I will also upload our mail correspondence on
> www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, urging the visitors to complain about this
> unfair and irrational ruling - and in the process I fear - undermining
> Wikipedia's credibility.
You can of course list this email on your website asking people to
object, i have no objection to you posting our email correspondence
since it was known all along that this was not a private email.
However you're unlikely to achive anything by it, Wikipedia is
specifically, to quote the Wikipedia article: "an online multilingual
'copyleft' encyclopedia designed to be read and edited by anyone.".
And images and content which does not fit the criteria is actively
being purged out or replaced.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Tim Ahrentløv
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
> Sent: 27. december 2004 13:32
> To: ta(a)ateist.org
> Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:34:19 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta(a)ateist.org> wrote:
> > Hi Ævar,
> >
> > A simple search on Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft)
> shows
> > the Microsoft logo. A click on the Encarta link
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Encarta) shows the Encarta logo,
> and
> > so on.
> >
> > Are these logos under the GNU license? Can these logos be used for
> whatever
> > purpose *you* may choose? Can they even be used at all, without
> Microsoft's
> > written consent? I must admit I do not understand why the IPU license is a
> > problem for Wikipedia.
> >
> > Do you write to Microsoft or many of the other very restrictive license
> > holders, informing them that their logos and identities *must* be allowed
> to
> > be used for any purpose imaginable? I find that hard to believe. I also
> find
> > it counterproductive to Wikipedia's role of simply relaying facts.
> >
> > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, please allow me to doubt that your request
> actually
> > conforms to the standards set by Wikipedia, and please be aware that I
> will
> > protest to this seemingly unfair and illogical ruling.
> >
> > Mvh
> > Tim Ahrentløv
>
> Not all images on wikipedia are "free", some, like the ones you
> mentioned are fair use logos, and others are under a none-commercial
> licence and more others have other terms, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_by_copyright_status
>
> There is an active movement to purge these images from wikipedia
> and/or replace them with free ones which can be used without
> restriction, a central staging area for this "operation" is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images , your
> image got listed there (not by me) stating that it "imposes condition
> that [the] symbol must represent atheism".
>
> Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
> ill-replaceable image like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg it will get deleted
> on January 10, 2005 (30 days from the initial listing) unless we can
> get a licence for it which is compatible with the GFDL.
>
> The reason for doing this is because wikipedia is not simply a fact
> relaying device, but a free encyclopedia, most other languages than
> the english version of it do not even accept none-free images and en.
> is actively phasing them out.
>
> As for any "official" protest please make them if you desire to do so,
> the english mailing list (wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org) would probably be
> the best way to do so, however note that I'm in no way making any sort
> of "ruling" on this, I simply saw the listing of the image on Possibly
> unfree images and decided to E-Mail the author of it to request that
> he grant permission to use it under a compatible licence.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 27. december 2004 02:48
> > To: ta(a)ateist.org
> > Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:04:37 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta(a)ateist.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Ævar,
> > >
> > > The IPU license is available here:
> > > http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu_logo_license.htm
> > >
> > > I fail to see what this license lacks in regard to the more formal GNU
> > > license. Basically, the license allows *anyone* to use the logo for
> *any*
> > > purpose (also commercial!) as long as it is used to represent atheism.
> The
> > > logo no longer belongs to me or www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, but to a
> > > purpose. I don't see that it can get any better or more public domain
> than
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Please elaborate on what seems to be missing from this current license,
> > > because I don't see any problems.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Tim Ahrentløv
> > >
> >
> > The problem specifically is the "used to represent atheism" part,
> > which does not give permission to use the image for porpoises other
> > than the representation of atheism which conflicts with PD and the
> > GFDL which allow the use of material for any porpoise.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 26. december 2004 23:26
> > > To: ta(a)invisiblepinkunicorn.com
> > > Subject: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> > >
> > > Notice: Consider this a none-private email.
> > >
> > > The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on wikipedia will be deleted on the
> > > next few days if it is not placed under a licence compatible with the
> > > GNU Free Documentation Licence or similar within the next few days,
> > > would you be willing to dual licence the image under the IPU Logo
> > > License and the GFDL so that it can be used in the article?
> > >
> > > URLs:
> > > IPU Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
> > > IPU Photo:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse
of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for
deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would
like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed
every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on
VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place
GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove
movement on there till we get rid of it.
Ta bu shi da yu
When undeleting pages, sysops now have to ability to restore selected
revisions rather than the full deleted history. I have posted some
questions about the use of this feature to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Undeletion_policy and
would appreciate comments there. The feature seems useful but has
potential for abuse; a policy discussion is needed.
I have also added an explanation of what I figured out by testing the
feature to [[Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops]]
( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_d…
); I would be grateful if the technical team would make sure I've
explained it properly.
--Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])
Hello!
Sorry for my english, but I need some help in a
problem regarding my boss xerox ,please.
I moved the machine from one location to another and
after two weeks i had a problem with it because after
a scaning it prints the page scaned and a white page..
I consulted some specialists which tell me that if i
upgrade the flash the problem will disappear but they
don't tell me how to do this.
PLEASE if you could help me i need to know how i can
upgrade the machine firmware version throw a paralel
cable from my computer, and from where could i get the
binary file for the upgrade.
THANKS A LOT! Best regards from Romania !
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
