Sorry for my english, but I need some help in a
problem regarding my boss xerox machine,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!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:56:35 +0000
From: "sandyweill @hotmail.com"
>I may have the same problem, and to make matters
worse, >I'm not even guilty of the charges
I suppose some enterprising hacker hijacked your
account and used it to remove the copyvio notices you
were specificially warned to stop removing.
In any case, I've unblocked you as the block should
have expired some hours ago.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
1. It would be helpful to create a new position in Wikipedia, with
the powers to investigate charges of sockpuppety, & provide an answer
within a short period of time -- say 12 or 24 hours. Currently, one
has to attract the attention of a developer (who obviously is more
interested in adding or fixing the Wikimedia code), who then must
investigate before the relevant logs are purged.
What I'm envisioning is someone who does nothing more than receives
an allegation that "X is a sockpuppet of Y", checks the logs, & reports
whether the 2 accounts come from the same IP number, or a subnet
belonging to the same ISP. (I don't know exactly how nuch info is
captured in the logs, & whether it is possible for one to determine
if a given IP address is a dial-up connection or a proxy address.)
There has been some objections about making this kind of information
even partly available because it would violate contributor's privacy.
2. I think it would be proper to put a waiting period between successive
nominations for VfD, say 1 month between the 1st & 2nd nominations, 3
months between the 2nd & 3rd, 6 months between the 3rd & 4th, & 1 year
thereafter. It appears to me that VfD is increasingly being used by
POV warriors over articles & their contents -- & not in the case of
3. Quality or quanitity of contributions do not inherently give an
editor any special standing or privileges on Wikipedia. One should be
required to defend or justify a controversial edit or comment by the
same standards whether one is a newbie making her/his 1st edit, or
someone in the top 100 list. Nor do these contributions give anyone
permission to be a potty mouth on either Wikipedia or any of its mailing
could an admin unblock me?
the block has lasted too long!
why won't anyone do anything? I have posted 3 times now to this
mailing list, and had no response! I am willing to try some good faith
if anyone else out there wants to!
Thank you for the elaboration.
I still dont 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
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.
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.
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
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
Thank you for your time.
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 27. december 2004 13:32
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)
> the Microsoft logo. A click on the Encarta link
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Encarta) shows the Encarta logo,
> so on.
> Are these logos under the GNU license? Can these logos be used for
> purpose *you* may choose? Can they even be used at all, without
> 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
> be used for any purpose imaginable? I find that hard to believe. I also
> it counterproductive to Wikipedia's role of simply relaying facts.
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, please allow me to doubt that your request
> conforms to the standards set by Wikipedia, and please be aware that I
> protest to this seemingly unfair and illogical ruling.
> 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
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:email@example.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
> > purpose (also commercial!) as long as it is used to represent atheism.
> > 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
> > 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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > 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
>> Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto
>> as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So
>> then a precedent is set.
What does occur to me is that it would be a really good idea to have a
nice, conspicuous template that could be used to tag Talk pages of
articles that have survived VfD, saying something along the lines of
"This article survived VfD on (date)." And good practice to put such a
notice at the TOP of the Talk page for relisted articles.
Now. As for the flaming... couldn't we have a little bit of "assume
Hypothetically, systematic VfD relistings _could_ be used as a
deliberate strategy by some deletionist conspiracy trying to impose
their beliefs against the consensus of the community. But I don't think
there's any evidence at all that anyone has yet done such a thing
I believe there's a good working consensus that once an article has
survived VfD it should not relisted for a decent period of time, three
to six months. And because of the _possibility_ of abuse I believe
that's a good custom. But I don't think there's any actual abuse, I
don't think there's any need for formal mechanism or policy, and the
solid string of "keeps" I've seen on inappropriately relisted articles,
is more than enough to keep any problem in check. There is a
significant segment of the Wikipedian population that will vote "keep"
on inappropriately relisted articles _even if they voted delete_ on the
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Re: "Because then we'd stop being a wiki, and loose a huge number of
contributors who just stop by to fix things, and then stay, but still not
exclude persistant troublemakers."
Being an inconvenience to legitimate contributors is a valid point. However,
it would have at least some effect on vandals.
To evade a block, all a vandal has to do is log off and log back on with a
new account. However, going through all the steps required by email
confirmation (consisting of signing up for a new email account, signing up
to Wikipedia, checking the new email account for confirmation, and then
logging on to Wikipedia) will take more time than the time required for
admins to ban the sockpuppet.
The vast majority of vandals won't have the patience to bother with going
through all these steps. Most of them are just bothering us because they are
bored and they find it amusing, not because they are determined to sabotage
our work. This'll probably encourage them to find something better to do.
This is worth losing a few contributors who just stop by to fix things. With
its exponential growth, Wikipedia can weather the effect on slowing growth
caused by adopting much needed quality control mechanisms. Growth is
definitely not one of our relative weaknesses next to other encyclopedias
online like Britannica and Encarta. Remember, Wikipedia's legitimacy will
rest on quality and product, not quantity and process.
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
sandyweill at hotmail.com wrote:
Sun Dec 26 07:50:45 UTC 2004
> I wouldn't complain if Gamalium wrote a public
explanation of this block.
I already did in my last email.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
sandyweill at hotmail.com sandyweill at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 26 07:18:23 UTC 2004 wrote:
22.214.171.124 was blocked for reason: "posting
copyvios, removing copyvio
notices, was warned and continued". Would anyone look
into especially the
last two reasons? They are completely made up.
No they are not. Sandyweill/[[User:Jerryseinfeld]]
posted a series of copyvios. I posted on his talk page
and asked him to stop and started to tag the pages. He
removed the copyvio tags from a number of pages. I
warned him to stop on his talk page. I know he read
the warning because he replied to the message. He
also continued to remove the copyvio tags. After he
was blocked he sent me the following email: "Hi. I
just signed up for the mailing list, and it looks like
YOU are about to be blocked. For acting irresponsibly,
making false claims, and attacking a star
contributor." Not exactly how I wanted to spend my
Christmas, nor what I wanted to talk about on my first
post to this list, but there you go.
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
126.96.36.199 was blocked for reason: "posting copyvios, removing copyvio
notices, was warned and continued". Would anyone look into especially the
last two reasons? They are completely made up.
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement