User talk:とある白い猫


 * This is the user talk page of Meta:User talk:とある白い猫

=Posts=

User:Panic2k4 sockpuppet block/Comment regarding Sockpuppets on Wikibooks English
I do not know the nature of the dispute and decided to provide my outside opinion. It is intended to be my opinions/advice in the matter. Nothing more.

From what I understand, User:Panic2k4 was blocked and his/her sockpuppets continue to edit during the duration of his/her block. There has been checkuser evidence and confessions to back this sockpuppet allegation. However because of the absence of a policy on wikibooks some people feel the block of sockpuppets is unwaranted.

I am a commons admin, and we too do not have a policy on sockpuppets on commons. However aggressive sockpuppets are blocked on commons left right regardless of the absence of a policy to do so. There is no point in having a checkuser on wikibooks if such sockpuppets are not to be blocked.

--Cool Cat 16:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, You left me a comment on my talk page (user: Xania) over on Wikibooks about sockpuppets created by the, currently, banned user Panic. Thanks for your comments.  The issue with Panic isn't really about his sockpuppets and he has made it very clear that they were created by him.  I think he was trying to prove a point (not sure what the point is) and also trying to be helpful (he did a lot of tidy up tasks with these puppets). Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still sockpuppets should not be used to evade blocks regardless of the intent. No? --Cool Cat 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say no to most occasions but this was civil disobedience without any wrong intentions and it is not covered on the policies so I don't see any harm, if it was used to continue the situation that resulted on the block or engage on any other actions that policies sees as block worthy then yes it should be regarded as bad but little could be done to stop it. --Panic 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's this all going?
Now the "Dispute Resolution" page has gone, and redirects to Panic's talk page? That seems odd to me. Also, large fractions of the text that were there are no longer present (they are, of course, in the histories for those who go and look). Seems that we're going backwards again. We need this discussion to happen in one place, that won't move around, with some clearly defined goals and a visible, updated current status being prominent. I do appreciate your willingness to help -- just trying to avoid repeating history (as recent history in this case has not been good for the community). -- James Dennett 04:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was asked to 'perhaps' move the discussion to Panic2k4's talk page so he can edit even when blocked. Since he removed the page I have restored it on the original location. -- Cat out 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about all that...
Sorry to have made you lose any of your time on that subject but at least it served to make some people address the issues, please consider participating into our (Wikibooks) policy building. --Panic 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a person who prefers to avoid "policies" since when you set boundaries disruptive individuals dance around those very boundaries. If someone is being disruptive, common sense can easily deal with it. Commons deals with disruptive individuals very effectively for this very reason. My recommendation is to avoid writing out "policies" and deal with disruption on a case by case basis. -- Cat chi? 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We share the same views then, policies should be made general and few in number, take a look on my [Essay on Decision making and Community consensus on Wikibooks], and btw consider casting your vote on the Staff_lounge/Technical_Chat, txs --Panic 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would avoid an essay all together - that also establishes a more generalized set of boundaries. I am too new on wikibooks to vote - and even then I tend to avoid voting on issues. I just make a comment here and there mostly. -- Cat chi? 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why you are trying to work on policies and stuff. Why on earth are you ignoring the mediation thing? -- Cat chi? 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm monitoring your talk pages and I'm no longer blocked, or dependent on continuation of the imposed mediation, I will reply here or on my talk pages as you prefer, don't copy all the thread there please txs. --Panic 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Copying a discussion thread to both talk pages is quite a standard way to do it. I have been doing so in the past 2+ years. Fine, I'll reply only here.
 * You still failed to answer my last question.
 * -- Cat chi? 04:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you are confused (I never used duplication of complete threads on a discussion prior to the moderation) and posting for +-4 years now :), I have replied to your last post (aren't you still monitoring my page?), well it is [there], you can reply there or here if you reply here I will delete the thread there and continue to reply here. Sorry if it is confusing (it is best than to have 2 duplicated threads running at least to me, you can move all posts of the thread from there to here if it makes you more comfortable if you chose to use your talk page that is, gezz even I am getting dizzy). --Panic 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I monitor no individual talk page. I Work on 4+ wikis and do not have that kind of time. The idea for duplication is better communication so that other people can also better follow it. In any case, I do not particularly care. I'll be replying to you here per your request. I am still waiting for you to answer my last question - or more like questions posed at you on the mediation page. -- Cat chi? 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

The wikimedia software can monitor pages for you, when I say monitor is add a page to your watchlist, anyway I'll move it all here then... --Panic 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I do not monitor talk pages of any person. -- Cat chi? 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are trying to work on policies and stuff. Why on earth are you ignoring the mediation thing? -- Cat chi? 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Humm ?!? What do you want to mediate ? All issues are partially resolved, and the mediation was imposed to me at the time and is no longer needed or required at least on my side, I don't see you will be able to solve the huge cliff that exists between me and some users, I will be glad of any insight you may have on the events or issues but can't see the purpose of any mediation now.
 * I thought that SB Jhonny told you that "most" things were resolved (I remember reading something on those lines).
 * Anyway if you still want to be of any help mending the bridges and be involved into dealing with the deeper problems or lets say divergent views, see for example this discussion Wikibooks_talk:Arbitration_Committee about freedom of participation vs status and for further and deeper insight on some of the view points I don't share with WK take a look at User_talk:Whiteknight it deals mostly on the level of trust and the segmentation of the community in special casts or power groups, the essay is also a good insight on what I believe and in general it deals in the core of all else.
 * Btw I remember reading somewhere, I think it was SB Jhonny, saying that you were more able to discuss legal matters and GFDL subjects is that right? If so I would like you to consider this 2 points.
 * What constitutes a cover page (on wikibooks)?
 * (I hope I'm not misrepresenting WK view but I think I got his point correct on that), WK defines that all wikibooks (the web site) is covered by a single GFDL license any content is therefor a module of that single work (much like wikipedia), I on the other hand say that there are 2 license one for all pages (lets call them modules) on site, but each book is excluded from that general license and falls into a specific license for each, as a stand alone work. WK validates his point on that all content committed is done under a specific notice (the one you see when you edit any page), I on the other hand disagree and defend that a specific notice has to be placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of the GFDL License.
 * If you want to see the original discussion in full I can provide you a link to it.
 * Txs for any input you can provide. (PS: this posts was done after the one I made to your talk page it is not on the diff I pointed to you, you can still move them all) --Panic 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (edited and removed some stuff that need not be addressed- [original posts] )


 * You haven't been editing the mediation page and I was not told of an agreement. You are welcome to talk about the agreement (whatever that is) on the mediation page for future referance.
 * A lot of the legal arguments and beliefs involving GFDL have never been challenged in court. Weather each page is licensed individually or as a whole under GFDL doesn't really matter. However GFDL notice must be visible on each and every piece of material under that license. It would make more sense to license every book individually.
 * -- Cat chi? 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok will do, can you provide a space near the header or do you prefer I just add a post after the last one ?
 * I don't agree with your conclusion that "Weather each page is licensed individually or as a whole under GFDL doesn't really matter", it can be so for you but you can't generalize and in Wikibooks that is a very important topic and has even implications on what is required to be stated, how the content is ordered and displayed, even on how we provide print versions of the books, or give credits to authors, or even give attributions. Just consider the topic of moving on site pages from books to books.
 * Humm notice is not the link or the full license text, were I said notice, I meant a statement of intentions by the creator(s). --Panic 07:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * United States copyright law does not work based on intentions of creators. "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
 * We also license images with different licenses. It would not be practical to license them all under a single license. Every page has a certain number of contributors who hold the copyright to the work they created. GFDL is not a surrender of copyright. It merely is a free license. Not only is every page individually licensed but every edit is individually licensed.
 * -- Cat chi? 07:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

United States copyright law does not work based on intentions of creators ?!?, of course it does, in several instances even on the selection of the license or for example only copyright holders can prosecute infringers under the GFDL see the FSF page about that same point, when you license anything under GFDL you grant permission to publish and share the content under very specific rules, you don't give away ownership or any other right (as you say "GFDL is not a surrender of copyright")... Multiple licenses, yes agree, for instance in wikipedia dual license contributions require the users to express they wishes on their userpages that serves as the notice of intentions required by the GFDL license and the others. (WK and I diverge in that he considers any edit grants authorship of a work, I define it as this: Author - Author is the one that creates or contributes for the creation of a work, after creation and/or publication of the work, the one that assumes legal responsibility for it and rights over it, each subsequent alterations to the same work fall in several categories including revisions, re-editions, translations etc... It is considered that a existing work can only be co-authored with the previous authors if significant changes are made so it could be considered a derivative work.) --Panic 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) So in other words you agree that wikibooks is covered by a general license and a specific license to each book ?
 * 2) Do you agree that the notice on save page performs that function of the notice of intentions or a express agreement of the user to that general license as required and stated on the GFDL?
 * 3) Do you consider them exclusive or inclusive ?
 * 4) If exclusive do you agree that it falls under the definition of AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS as stated on the GFDL ?
 * 5) What then constitutes a title/cover page of a book ?
 * 6) Do you agree also that "Provide a functional link back to the Wikibooks book or Wikibooks module (this satisfies the author credit requirement of our license)" does not cover the independent work that a book constitutes?
 * 7) How do you define an author (or more specifically a book author at wikibooks) ?


 * Multiple licenses can only be used if they are GFDL compatible (non-commercial creative commons is obviously not compatible for instance). Once something is released under GFDL it is non-revoke-able and hence the intentions of the creator becomes irrelevant.
 * The content of any wiki sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation to my knowledge is licensed under GFDL. I do not see the point of this argument.
 * The "notice" on the save page serves to inform the person editing that what they are typing will be forever licensed under GFDL the second they press the save button. GFDL cannot be revoked.
 * I do not have the slightest idea what this one is asking.
 * Again I do not have the slightest idea what this one is asking.
 * A cover page of the book is the first page that generally contains art work and etc. This is trivial knowledge.
 * I am not sure what you are asking here.
 * Just like wikipedia, wikibooks is a cooperative environment. No book should be written by a single individual. "Author" is everybody involved - vandals (since vandalism will be removed from the final product)
 * I do not understand what you are trying to get at. GFDL is non-revoke-able and all derivative works must be licensed under GFDL. Furthermore, GFDL allows derivative works.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Were did you get the idea of revoking (I didn't ask anything on that direction) and the questions are strait forward, mostly require a yes or no answer.
 * Yup I agree on the multiple license point, as for the intentions of the creator being irrelevant it's debatable lets take for example the recent post on the staff lounge of an author that intents to use Wikibooks to create his dual license book (I don't want to discuss that just to point out that it may not be so irrelevant as it has implications)
 * So again can you help me on this ones.
 * I know that the content is licensed under the GFDL (I had to be blind not to get that :) ), what I asked is that do you agree that the license that covers the Wikibooks site and its modules is not the same that covers each independent book ?
 * The notice you already answered, and I agree.
 * If Wikibooks is an AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS the licenses are overlapping so are they exclusive or inclusive? from the GFDL text I take it is exclusive. (if not they would be called dependent works :) )
 * What constitutes a title/cover page of a book at Wikibooks ?
 * (I'll reword this one as it is partially answered by some of the above questions) Do you agree also that "Provide a functional link back to the Wikibooks book or Wikibooks module (this satisfies the author credit requirement of our license)" as stated on Copyrights does not cover the requirements of the license of a book at Wikibooks ? (but only every other page that is not part of a independent work.)
 * How do you define an author (or more specifically a book author at wikibooks) ? (and no Wikibooks is not like Wikipedia, Wikipedia deals with a collection of articles and Wikibooks deals with Books and each book has it's own authors and is covered by individual licenses and dependencies, like other books. They are indeed independent works) if you continue to share the statement above then this is also answered and I don't agree with you on this one.
 * I'm not getting at one specific point. I would like to know your understanding of this situations, some are seen differently by several user (not only me). --Panic 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (PS: can you archive/delete or basically make some of the posts above go away it's becoming harder to edit) txs --Panic 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that you don't know it. Half of the issues involving GFDL involves this non-revokability.
 * 1. I do not particularly see a legal difference if one considers it individually or as a whole. Each edit has their own individual copyright. Stitching them together into a single book creates a new copyright (GFDL allows that provided you attribute everybody), so it is perhaps both. Legaly, arguing either way doesn't quite matter.
 * 3. All WMF sponsored wikis are writen in a collaborative and cooperative manner. People retain copyright for individual copyright but they release some rights according to GFDL. I do not understand what you mean by "exclusive or inclusive"
 * 4. ? When publishing a book, you can change the title. I do not understand the significance of this.
 * 5. Every bit of history would need to be linked - or a page that links to every bit of history would need to be linked. Sourcing a wiki-page that links to every page of the book is more than adequate citation.
 * 6. What makes wikibooks different from wikipedia? They have the same license?
 * Repetitively asking the same question will get you the same answer from me. I am not a lawyer, and very little material on GFDL has been challenged in court so dealing with GFDL as simplistically as possible is the smart thing to do.
 * If you have questions about GFDL and its implications, your best bet is to ask the GFDL people.
 * -- Cat chi? 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

1. Consider moving a page from a book to the main namespace (the legal requirements) or from book to book (that one is easy one must give credit to the source book) and for example from wikipedia to a book (one must give credit to Wikipedia)... 3. The GFDL creates specific requirements that must be met, considering that a book is a independent work (as defined on 7 AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS) I see it as exclusive even if it is overlapped due to the virtualization of the framework we work in (wiki) so this has implication on how one must solve the requirements of the license in 2 specific "spaces" the Wikibooks and the "book" (they are considered 2 separated works), this has implications on point 1. 4. Books on Wikibooks are published as soon they are edited (can be considered a modification or a derived work, depending on the level of contribution, so the question is simple on a book on Wikibooks how do you define the title or cover page as referred on the GFDL ? (this has several implications) 5. Humm I don't agree with you there, (considering we are using a GFDL work as a target) to use any article of Wikipedia (I must only acknowledge Wikipedia as the source), to use something from the Wikibooks namespace (not a book page) I must only acknowledge Wikibooks, to use pages from any GFDL or with a similar license on a book under GFDL (even the one on wikibook) I must acknowledge the source books or authors (depending on how the source is structured and the level of utilization of content from the source), so the problem is simple, we have 2 licenses on for the Wikibooks namespace and one for each books, (on the books references to Wikibooks as source is not required) 6. What makes it different is simple each article on Wikipedia doesn't have its own license, they are all under the namespace, books on wikibooks are stand alone works. Agree I thought you had a better understanding of the legal implications or the application of the license, but tanks for providing you views on the subject. In particular the point you consider Wikibooks and Wikimedia are equal in the its legal structure is a common mistake people do make. Well you didn't respond yet if you do want me to add my post on the mediation on the top or after the last one ? --Panic 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to email the FSF on the US sometime ago but got a server error (the address is not recognized on the server) even if they publish it on the page, I will try FSF Europe next but I'm attempting to establish what the errors/view points/implications are. --Panic 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Collaborative book writing isn't something new. You are required to credit the source, not the authors. Weather its licensed individually or as a whole or both doesn't matter at all. Arguing either way is pointless since we do not have a basis for it anyways.
 * 3 & 4. Try challenging this point in a court. My or your opinions are irrelevant. Wikibooks is not the median for legal discussions.
 * 5. You are required to cite which page(s) you had been copying. Weather citing the entire book qualifies I do not know. People generally cite pages for verifiability purposes.
 * 6. I was unaware of blanket licensing on wikipedia. Every edit here or there gets its own copyright. People who contribute to either project care more about the common goal (a free encyclopedia/a free book/free whatever) than their individual copyrights. I do not have the slightest clue why you are so worked out about it
 * Please do not waste peoples times with your theories on legal implications of GFDL. You are welcome to publish these theories and get them peer reviewed or alternatively challenge them in court. Questions you ask are unanswerable because we don't have legal cases for basis.
 * -- Cat chi? 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok it seems you don't give the same importance that I give to the use of the GFDL and licensing issues and the need to be clear :and inform the users, it is my view that you are completely mistaken on the part of dual licenses, there can be incompatible licenses that are dual-licensed material. For example, you can have content which is licensed simultaneously under the GFDL and Microsoft EULA. All you are doing is offering multiple alternatives for legal republication of content.


 * Your notion that all Wikimedia sponsored Wikis are under the terms of the GFDL is also incorrect. Wikinews is under the CC-by license, and some of the Wikimedia Foundation pages are a strict proprietary copyright... no license for republication at all. The Wikimania pages are "free to use, but not to modify".


 * You would have to agree here that at least making an administrative edit (adding or removing a category/VfD notice, etc.) does not constitute being considered an author. Certainly reverted vandals don't count. Take for instance this proposal [neta:Summer_of_Code_2007#Authorship_determination] made by Robert (at least I'm not alone on the importance I give the issue), or [or this post from three years ago from Richard Stallman] that dismisses nearly all aggregation arguments that have been used for fair use and license combining on Wikipedia, or this bugzilla request here (Bugzilla:2993).


 * It seems as though deliberate action on the part of several "upper" Wikimedia Foundation members, that they explicitly are trying to stop any kind of authorship recognition. A proposal was even made here on Wikibooks to explicitly ban author pages entirely. (It was blocked).


 * I have no problem with Wikimedia or even the community blocking or working to make attributing copyright harder (this ultimately will benefit us all, as consumers), I do consume more than I produce (and most people do if not closed in a box), what irks me is not stating that openly and let people know it, to me it is working equal to be in bad faith against the users. As an creator my main motivation to participate here was to build stuff and to be able to point to the things I create, by diluting the work one makes how does one state his achievements, or why bother to perform a greater contribution of content if any one can claim to have done it.


 * I assure you if I had understood from the beginning the implications I would not have used Wikibooks and would have created the content outside even under the GFDL (I have no problem with the freedom of the license), for instance I contribute from time to time to wikipedia but I do it anonymously, what I don't like is the convenient way people brush aside the pieces they don't particularly like. (Referring mostly title/cover pages stating the authors or credits given, granting authorship based on the weak history logs, or just because of spell correction or even the rewording of the text, without taking into account the size of contributions, this to my view will only reduce contributors if they are properly informed of the facts, and I don't see a logical reason to do so since the license gives freedom to the content).


 * This is also a poor way of educating people, I can't understand how can anyone claim to have built a house if all they did was hammer a handful of nails.


 * "Signing" an author's page is required to be counted as an author (GFDL - This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License.) the license states the authors page as the place to do it. --Panic 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Username rename
I would like my account User:Cool Cat be renamed to User:White Cat as per my wikimedia-wide username change. -- Cat chi? 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed your username here ages ago. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh.... O_O my bad. NM NM. :P -- Cat chi? 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Computer. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Computer~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Cool Cat. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Cool Cat~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)