Talk:Quantum theory of observation

Move entire book
I want to move entire book from  to. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions|#default= PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions  }}|Wikibooks=PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions|#default=  PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions  }}|Wikibooks=PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions|#default=  PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions  }}|Wikibooks=PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions|#default=  PokestarFan*Talk*Contributions  }} 22:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why? I know that the usual practice in english requires uppercase letters in book titles, but is it really important ? I don't like this practice, because I reserve uppercase letters for great Ideas like Truth, Justice, and so on. And there are exceptions to the usual practice. For example, I have a printed copy of Baars' book : a cognitive theory of consciousness. There aren't any uppercase letters.--TD (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Authorship
I am the author of the book. I think I have the right to say it on the front page. As far as I know links to user pages of authors are not forbidden on Wikibooks.--TD (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Self-promotion

 * Earlier parts of this discussion have been copied here from User talk:Leaderboard (not by me). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Part 1
Hi, the article Quantum theory of observation is exclusively the work of Thierry Dugnolle (same in French: fr:Théorie quantique de l'observation) - the same user who added the link to it. And added it in multiple Wikipedia articles, reverted by various different editors there. If this is not self-promotion, what is it? --Mfb (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for notifying me. I did not notice that he had placed his name in the top of the article; also, I mistakely thought of 'self-promotion' as that of your work (I've removed that link). That being said, I am not sure whether your claim "by far not important enough to be mentioned here" is accurate enough; can you explain that? Thanks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just try to find the book outside Wikibooks. Zero reception. --Mfb (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's probably not popular, but how is that a reason for not linking it here (even if it's one person's work)? As long as the content is accurate and relevant, I cannot see any issue at this time(And if indeed it is inaccurate/irrelevant/duplicated, then it should be fixed or a request for deletion initiated). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is accurate or relevant, but there is nothing that would demonstrate either. It looks like a pet "theory" of this user. And I don't think Wikibooks is the right place to spread pet theories, especially not into articles about actual science. --Mfb (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a professional. I don't work in Wikibooks under a pseudonym. With my work I defend my professional honor. I think that Wikibooks should respect workers and professionalism and that your practice of insulting workers should not be encouraged. The book embraces the whole field or quantum foundations. There are many, many results of fundamental importance. All is proved from the first principles. If you want to justify your judgment, you should find at least one scientific mistake. Can you ? "It looks like a pet theory" is not a scientific judgment, only an insult.--TD (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When I started on Wikipedia I naively registered under my real name, with iirc a somewhat snobbish sense of superiority in doing so. It took me a year or so to realize this only got in the way of my ability to become the best wiki contributor I could be, both because my identity could bias other people's reactions to me, both for good and for ill, and because wearing my identity openly could bias my reactions to the situations I would be in.  Bluntly, at the time I was still full enough of myself that editing under my real name made me more uncomfortable about admitting when I was wrong.  Especially in the early years I found a pseudonym very liberating in that respect, allowing me to leave my ego behind.  Later, as my wiki persona has gained some seniority, I've had to learn how to preserve that sense of liberating non-ego.  Yes, a pseudonym has its drawbacks; for years people were apt to imagine I was a teenager; but all in all I recommend it over use of real name, especially for users with academic degrees.  Even if people know your real name, the pseudonym can still provide useful distance.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You choose your way. I choose mine. Professional honor is not egotism. I think that you and all wikibookians should respect professionalism. Please stop lecturing me. You make me lose my time. I work here to write textbooks.--TD (discuss • contribs) 06:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This is not about personal preference; "your way" is blatantly contrary to the nature of the project, and does real harm to it. I'm not here for my health.  I'm not here for personal glory (and avoiding that disastrous objective is greatly aided by a pseudonym).  I'm here because I wish to help the project, and you are harming the project.  You certainly "deserve" to be blocked for your intransigently damaging behavior, but blocking is a tool, not a prescription, and I'm holding off on blocking you &mdash;and even holding off on reverting your policy-violating edit, since it would undoubtedly cause you to revert again and I'd really have no choice at that point but to block you, so there's scarcely any moral difference between the revert and the block&mdash; because I can see that your ego is blatantly extremely involved, and you are one of the contributors to the project and I wish to help you; I don't like to give up on anyone if I can help it.  Ultimately you cannot be as important as everyone else put together, but I do care to try to find a way of helping you too. You are wasting huge amounts of our time.  And yet we continue to try to find a way to help you; just blocking you would be a lot faster.  Think about that.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave three finished books to the project and you say I am harmful. You seem to think that professionals like me who write textbooks about what they know should be excluded from Wikibooks. I insist: I work here to write textbooks. And I don't think I always have to justify myself in front of those who insult, harass or patronize me. Stop this harassment and don't threaten me. Let me do my work. And I remind you that this accusation of self-promotion is blatantly false. See below. --TD (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are harassing us, and damaging the project. Temporarily holding off on action I should have taken against you is the opposite of "threatening" (though, I admit, it occurred to me shortly after posting the above that your selfish all-about-you worldview would almost certainly twist my remarks around to that interpretation &mdash; I'm sincere about this; can't you see how badly your own self-absorption is distorting your perceptions?).  Nobody here has insulted you, but your comments are littered with evidence that you routinely interpret discussions that have nothing to do with you personally as personal insult, which is both clear evidence that you are committing web-hosting and demonstration of one (though only one) of the reasons it should be avoided.  The observation of self-promotion is blatantly true, stunningly obviously true. Yes, you are doing real harm to the project.  There's no need for you to do so; it's a choice on your part. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The rule of no self-promotion states that we don't need "books or modules on items just because a contributor is associated with them". My textbooks are not excluded by this rule. I didn't harass anyone. I didn't start this discussion. I only protected my book against unwanted modifications. I think I have the right to do that.--TD (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear confused by the heading on this section; almost none of the discussion here is about self-promotion (other than your own repeatedly dredging it up again). However, as a matter of common sense, no the books in question are not self-promotion &mdash; but your signature at the top of the book and claim of ownership obviously are. And this isn't your book, and no you don't have the right to dictate over the concerns of other users about the book.  You claim academic credentials, which might be true (I have a nice robe with a hood on it in a closet around here somewhere) but is beside the point.  Even if it were a matter of expertise, your wouldn't have absolute power over it; experts often have blind spots, for example to do with dogma; I shudder to think how badly you'd freak out if somebody were to improve this book's neutrality; but the main topic of discussion here doens't even have to do with the information in the book, but with your desire to tell its readers that their contributions are unwelcome.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never claimed any academic credentials. The point is that as the author of a book I think I can refuse any unwanted modification. You accuse me falsely. I don't refuse all modifications, only those of readers who disagree with me. You should realize that your repeated false accusations are a kind of harassment. You declare that my textbooks are harmful to the project, and you threaten to exclude me. This is also harassment.--TD (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You routinely use words like "insult" and "harassment" about others if they do not accept things you say; and you say things that are wrong. Notably, you claim &mdash;and probably believe&mdash; that preventing you from curtailing other people's rights is curtailing your rights (which, I'm sorry to say, is a common position amongst people who seek to curtail the rights of others). Billing a book as yours is, glaringly obviously, telling other people not to touch it.  And that is deeply damaging to the project, doing violence to its future by pushing people away from a project whose long-term prospects, like those of all open wikis, depend on welcoming all contributors.  The deep damage is done without any edit being made, in fact it is done regardless of whether the user would have made an edit.  Just knowing that their input is, or is not, welcome can make all the difference in the attitude toward the project that they will carry forward to future contributions they might make to the project, and that they may well pass on to others who might make future contributions to the project.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are talking about someone else. Here are the fist words of my billing: How to read this book cooperatively. "The best way: Feel free to delete or change any word you read and to add any word you want. I would like to know all that you have to say on the subject. Show me what you got and be bold."--TD (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You make openness claims like that, off in corners here and there, but they are not impactful; and, taken in context with your other remarks, they lose credibility, too. Putting your name at the top of the main page of a book &mdash; that is impactful (in a very harmful way that you are apparently unable to to see).  Becoming personally insulted when others point out a presentational problem with the book you created &mdash; that is authentic reflection of attitude. I have always been very reluctant about asserting my preferences on the content of a book, and have had to cautiously work my way up from a position of deference, eventually reaching for confidence that my position has merit.  You evidently start from the opposite position, basically assuming you're right about everything by definition and then maybe considering climbing down from there.  That sort of proprietary attitude is part of what I was able to escape cleanly from by adopting a pseudonym. Did you not claim any academic credentials?  It seemed kind of implied by your general remarks. Your division of this into Parts 1 and 2 doesn't seem all that natural, to me.  The structure of the discussion is all rather organic and interconnected. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I divided the parts; the main discussion wasn't happening at the bottom, and I needed to make that clear. On the other side, how many discussion points for this should be there? A real case of ratatoulle; I now see an entry like "This discussion is continued in Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks". That's driving me nuts. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The entry you mention is only an information about a discussion on a related but separate issue. It is in its proper place, in the discussion page of WB:WIW.
 * I dont't need academic credentials to defend my professional honor. My textbooks speak for themselves.
 * The right for an author to refuse any unwanted modification is a way to get rid of bad controversy. I don't like lengthy and sterile discussions.
 * If the following words are the problem which troubles you: "I must warn you that I am a good verbal «fighter». If you don't want to lose in a discussion, do not fight against me, except of course if you're sure you can win", you can delete them. I think it's not a bad warning, but I don't care. This wouldn't be an unwanted modification.--TD (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The implication that you imagine your honor, professional or otherwise, is involved here shows a deep misconception of Wikibooks. Claiming to be a good verbal fighter is a clear sign of a bad attitude; I'd enjoy a rational discussion of serious issues with other intelligent people of good faith, but that remark suggests you enjoy bullying other people to shut up, which is consistent with your well-established wider anti-collaborative attitude.  Despite the fact that I disapprove of AGF as a principle, I do have a personal preference for believing good things about other people; and even now I am reluctant to give up on the conjecture that you simply do not realize that you are stifling other people's contributions &mdash; but slowly, various fragments of evidence such as that bit about verbal fighting are gradually working me around to the unpleasant suspicion that you really are aware what you are doing is wrong.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I insist: stop this harassment. If you keep on harassing professional textbooks authors you could be harmful to the project. Let workers work. I think that what I do is right because I write educational textbooks in a free educational library. Your insinuations and accusations are harassment. You have the duty to respect honest workers.--TD (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't kid yourself; you aren't the victim here, you're the one creating a problem. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is the problem here? You want me not to write my educational textbooks. You are stubborn with your false accusations and insinuations. Is there only one of your false accusations that you think is really true? Can you find one?--TD (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I stated what I want, prominently, up front at the water cooler, where you have commented so might be expected to realize that your claim about what I want contradicts both my words and actions. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

 * If it's original research, that's against Wikibooks policy. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's this all about?  To state the obvious, there's no such thing as a Wikibook that belongs to a particular user; that would be directly contradictory to the very concept of Wiki-ness.  WB:HOST.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And hence I'll stand by my decision of removing the author's name at Quantum theory of observation., you should note the comment made by , as indeed putting your name there sounds like a Wikibook that belongs to you. The talk page is a better page to mention that(or maybe a section at the bottom of the page like Contributors). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would I put a list of contributors whereas I am the single one ?
 * This book is an educational textbook. This is standard quantum physics explained in the framework of Everett's theory. Everything is proved from the first principles, and the computations are usually very simple and can be found in any textbook on the same subject. There are a few paragraphs where I explain my original work because it was made for educational purposes. (This discussion is continued in Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks --TD (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC))
 * My name in the front page is not a property right, only an information given to the readers, that I am the author. Authors can identify themselves on Wikibooks. I am not the first to do it.--TD (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it that you want to attribute yourself as the major contributor, but again, the way that you are doing it is where I have the issue. You may be the single one, but the potential implication is that that wikibook is yours, which is not allowed. Whether you are the only editor or otherwise, you could probably attribute it like how wikibooks like How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC or Basic_Computing_Using_Windows do it. (Yes, those aren't 'one-man' projects, but even then)

Or at least put it in a 'Contributors' section at the bottom of the main page. and other admins, your views on this? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am the single contributor, except for very few minor corrections (typographical...). The book is finished. It is not supposed to be completed because it is consistent as it stands. This is why new contributors are not explicitly invited. If a new contributor wants to change the book against my will, this never happened, but it could, I will want to restore the book as I want it to be, because it is finished. If I think the new contribution is good, it will be welcome, of course, and its author will decide if he or she wants to be identified as a contributor. --TD (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Contributions are always welcome. That is the nature of Wikibooks.  WB:OWN.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If a contribution is inconsistent with what I wrote, or superfluous, or meaningless, I will invite the contributor to write another wikibook. He or she will always be welcome on Wikibooks, but not on this wikibook. --TD (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can even make such a rule. That's the whole point of "there's no such thing as a Wikibook that belongs to a particular user" made by ; in essence, you're protecting that wikibook to yourself, which is out of scope. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should know that WB:OWN is not an official policy or guideline of Wikibooks. I wanted a rule that protects authorship, because I wanted future authors to be reassured that they can write the wikibook they want. But this guideline was not consensual, not more than WB:OWN. The practice on Wikibooks is enough to reassure me, because no one never tried to make of my books what I did not want them to be. Please don't interfere with this practice. My name on the front page has never been a problem before you questioned it. If you want to know what I think about cooperation on Wikibooks, you can read User:Thierry Dugnolle/Cooperative reading--TD (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering taken to an absurd extreme. WB:OWN is people who understand the project explaining basic, obvious things for the uninitiated; it's quite usual for such things not to be "made official".  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed this bad practice before. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes it clear then., the fact that no-one questioned your practice before is no excuse to the fact that you aren't correct. Remember the essay you linked? You show signs of imposition of your policies (effectively telling people not to challenge you as you think you're superior). Let's be clear - you do not have the right to 'own' your wikibook. This is Wikibooks, not your blog. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a rule you should respect: never make personal judgments, keep focused on the subject under discussion. Of course, this not my blog. I write educational textbooks. --TD (discuss • contribs) 08:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible to write an educational textbook on a blog, where you have dictatorial control over the content (up to a point). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This answer tells the whole difference between your point of view about Wikibooks and mine. You suggest that an author like me, who writes educational textbooks, should not write on Wikibooks but on a personal blog, because I want my books to be as I want them to be. Am I wrong ? I think that Wikibooks should welcome all authors who want to write educational wikibooks, and not exclude anyone.
 * Your idea of the very concept of Wiki-ness seems to me to be a very particular one. You seem to think that authorship is incompatible with Wiki-ness. Have you heard of Commons? Isn't it Wiki-ness? When I publish on Commons, like many others, I declare that this is my own work, that I am the author. If I want to change the final version of my work, I can do it, and no one can prevent me from doing it. In the movie language, I have the final cut. Are you sure this right to the final cut is inconsistent with sound principles about Wiki-ness? I have the final cut means I decide what is given under my name. I want authors in Wikibooks to have the final cut, and I don't want you to exclude them, like you seem to want to exclude me. Are you sure that I don't have the right to write in Wikibooks? I don't know many authors who like to publish their work if they don't have the final cut.--TD (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no suggestion to you here about blogging. We have pointed out to you that there is an important difference between blogging and contributing to Wikibooks.  From your statement "Of course, this is not my blog.  I write educational textbooks" it appeared you had not grasped the point of the earlier mention of blogs, hence my own remark. Indeed, what you call "authorship" (and I know of no other precedent for calling it that) is incompatible with wiki-ness.  This project is cooperative, and based on a belief that there are lots of competent people in the general population.  People come here to participate in that sort of cooperative community.   You've made clear your do not believe in such a project, and, apparently, not content to dictate what can be done to your books (which you could do on a blog of your own), you wish to force others to allow you to turn this cooperative project into a safe haven for people like you who do not believe in the cooperative principles of the project.  This is, at least, philosophically consistent of you since it prioritizes encouraging contributions by people who don't believe in cooperation over encouraging contributions by people who do.  It's quite clear that lots of people believe in this cooperative project, given its size.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I want cooperation as much as you do. Why do you think that authorship is incompatible with cooperation? Nothing prevents authors from cooperating. If someone wants to modify the wikibooks I wrote against my will, this is not cooperation, but only a source of conflict. --TD (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol. So it's cooperation as long as it's your way.  I'm reminded of Henry Ford's (paraphrased) dictum for the Model-T: any color as long as it's black. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone who modify the books I wrote is cooperating with me only if he or she doesn't change them against my will. How could it be cooperation if my right to do of my writings what I want is denied ? Your idea of cooperation is peculiar. Do you think that all the authors of the world never cooperate with any one ? Authors cooperate in many ways. The simple fact to write a book is a kind of cooperation : it gives to everyone the freedom to read the book. In Wikibooks, authors can cooperate more with readers and other authors, helping each other to write or understand their books. An author or a reader who respect authors is in a better place to cooperate with them than someone who denies them the final cut.
 * My idea of what Wikibooks should be and could be. I would like all authors of the world to know that they can publish their textbooks on Wikibooks where they can cooperate with readers and other authors. I would like them to know that they can write their books as they want them to be, provided they agree to the general rules of acceptable content, and that freedom of thought is always respected. Textbook authors are usually not very motivated by money, too much work for too little money, they want to help, to teach, and they usually also want the recognition which comes with such a competence. If Wikibooks becomes more prestigious, many authors could be motivated to join us.--TD (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have been through this before. It was explained to you at length that your basic vision of restricting wikibooks is contrary to the basic premise of the project, and that by not setting yourself up with god-like authority over what you write, you enhance your work rather than diminishing yourself.  As far as I ever discerned, you never figured it out, and I'm sorry for you for that, but you still don't get to treat this project as your web host.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence you exclude authors like me who want to write textbooks as they want them to be. I want to welcome all authors, those who like to work with your principles and all others.--TD (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what you have failed to grasp. Most people, in my experience, when given the chance to contribute to a truly inclusive community, embrace and welcome that collegial experience.  You want instead to be inclusive of people whose impulses are exclusive.  Looking at contemporary world politics (always a dangerous thing to do, but the analogy is just so apt), it's like the difference between a coalition of democratic countries, and an alliance between dictators across the world.  (As Tom Lehrer said, I know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that all authors of textbooks who want their books as they want them to be are like dictators. From my point of view I'm a free thinker. How my freedom of thought could be respected if I can't write my textbooks as I want to write them? And be careful not to make personal judgments. You know nothing about my love for my fellow human beings. What will happen if I put again my name on the front page of my textbook against your will ? --TD (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikibookians always had the right to identify themselves as authors. I don't know why you want to change this rule.
 * Your reason is not convincing "we do not own books here; your purpose is to prevent others from contributing, and that is unacceptable". My purpose is not to prevent others from contributing, but to invite them to contribute freely, to cooperate with me if we agree, and to write their own textbooks if they want. Your purpose is to prevent me from contributing the way I want.--TD (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have every right to identify yourself as an author. You do not have the right to claim ownership.  This distinction is simple and obvious, and is at the heart of wiki-ness.  You have been told repeatedly; the fact that you insist on putting your name at the top, after it has been patiently explained to you why doing so is harmful to the project, demonstrates that your intention is dictatorial; you can lie about it (even to yourself), but that's the truth of the matter.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you have the right to forbid me to work the way I want? WB:OWN is not an official guideline. And why are you talking about lies ? Why is my way harmful to the project? I don't forbid any one to contribute. What or who is threatened? Why couldn't Wikibooks welcome those whose ideas are different from yours? Please be precise: I don't claim ownership, all my work is freely given to the public with a Creative Commons license, I only claim authorship. You decide what is good and bad for Wikibooks and you don't want wikibookians who do not think like you. This is dictatorship. I let every one work the way they want. This is freedom. There will be a an editorial conflict because I can't accept your intolerance.--TD (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are deliberately seeking to drive off others from contributing; and you are saying that you aren't do so, while you do so. Telling others not to contribute is blatantly harmful to the project.  Your pretence of "tolerance" for people who, like you, are intolerant toward collaborative writing is nonsensical at best.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The history and surrounding discussion of WB:OWN show the flimsy nature of your denial of it, but in any case WB:HOST is in fact a policy, and an alternative view of the same unacceptability of ownership. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never told others not to contribute. I only warn them that on the wikibooks I wrote, they have to agree with me if they want their contribution to stay in this book. I insist: if a reader wants to modify what I wrote against my will, he or she is not cooperating but only wants conflict and sterile discussions. Do you think I want to lose my time with people who lose theirs to insult me? I don't want a wiki host or a website provider, I write in an educational library where cooperation between authors and readers is encouraged. --TD (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What is self promotion ?
"Wikibooks modules are not (...) advertising or self-promotion. We don't need books or modules on items just because a contributor is associated with them. Please note that Wikibooks does not endorse any business and it does not set up affiliate programs." from WB:WIW

It seems to be clear. But Mfb has a curious interpretation and seems to think that a physicist like me has not the right to work in Wikibooks, because I defend my professional honor. I wrote a book on the foundations of quantum mechanics, not about me. Should professionals who write textbooks about what they know be excluded from Wikibooks because it is a kind of self-promotion? --TD (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion
Leaderboard and Pi zero wanted to change the initial presentation because they accused me falsely of self-promotion. They pretended that I wanted to "own" the book, which is meaningless in Wikibooks. Leaderboard wrote a new absurd presentation. Why such a title "Contributors" whereas I am the single author? This is misinformation to the reader. Hence I think the initial presentation is better than the present one, and I hope that users like Pi zero, Leaderboard or QuiteUnusual won't seek an editorial conflict, just for the pleasure to harass me. I restore the right, initial presentation of this book. If you edit this book, you have to improve it. If you can't, let me do my work, and don't harass me with your stupid editorial conflicts. --TD (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Site policy was explained to you, and you were warned that such action would be considered policy violation. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)