User talk:Mshonle/Fork issue

This page is locked. Start new discussions at Fork issue 2.

And the fork issue itself
Well, again I see my attempt to contribute were "reverted" and as they were to all on the same day to be a non-issue. As I stated many times, I really ain't inclined to be political (and politically correct) and from time to time to explain the same thing over and over. I'm interested in providing content (I will fallow rules but will not spend time mastering them, it's sufficient that they are pointed out to me as they are in check) the limitations of the given framework aren´t my problem and I can't do noting to change -well I could try to make them policies- (nor do I like the framework in the first place, I do love the idea of it)... this said I will be "moving" (as in; stop contributions, making a derived work elsewhere) if the "reversions" are reverted or a just explanation to them is given, by a third party (not by Mshonle) ).

I must point out that:
 * 1) Moderators don't seem to know how to "moderate", probably not theyer fault as so much work needs doing that the time doesn't allow to be polite or examine theyer actions (like looking to what they are doing in the first place, I do believe that they tend to make much fuss when actions are more "visible" than really doing the work needed... not all seem to be on this class, but it's my vision on most of the work done by said "moderators")
 * 2) There is no Fork the books are indeed dif. from each oder as I already told another "moderator" that simply "deleted" the books without fallowing the (created rules to deal with this same "fork"), a simple examination of the 2 works will be sufficient to see that they are intended to dif. audiences (I was merging what could be reused, trasncluding parts that were equal or similar, and since Paddu seems now absent or wiling to merge its initial part of the book witch was mostly contributed by him a Index page could be used to provide a framework to his work without any prejudice, most of Paddus objections were again the talk page restructuring than to the changes done to the book by me.

8 September 2005 23:58 Programming:C -/- -/- OnePage (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (phase out this template, in addition to the eventual deletion of this fork) 23:49 Embedded Systems: Theory, Design and Implementation (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove Foreword; having the first page of every wikibook look alike is a non-goal) 23:47 Internet Technologies/Peer-to-Peer (P2P) (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (Wow, this book actually *is* about peer to peer this time (many uses of the Foreword template must have been directly copied from here)) 23:44 Programming:Unified Modeling Language (UML) (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove Foreword; having the first page of every wikibook look alike is a non-goal) 23:38 Wikibooks:Forking policy (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove some of Panic's rewording) 23:28 Programming:D (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (Revert to Phil Boswell's version; such a forward is completely unnecessary) 23:02 Programming:C -/- -/- (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (Remove notice) 16:29 Programming:C sharp (diff; hist). . 141.211.35.23 (Talk) (→User input) 04:45 Wikibooks talk:Forking policy (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (→Programming:C plus plus and its fork Programming: C -/- -/- - update) 03:54 Programming:MS Visual Studio (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove distracting banners and unneeded forward) 03:47 Programming:Objective-C (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove distracting banner) 03:46 Programming:Java (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove distracting banners and unneeded forward) 03:40 Programming:Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (remove distracting banner) m 03:21 Programming:C plus plus (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (since the whole page itself kind of *is* a TOC) 03:18 User talk:Panic2k4 (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (Fork Warning) 03:05 Talk:Programming:C -/- -/- (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (Notice of Merge) 03:05 Talk:Programming:C plus plus (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (Notice of Merge) 7 September 2005 22:22 Template:Wrongtitle (diff; hist). . Mshonle (Talk) (rv to Eyu100's vers. The tech limitations are broader than WB-- in some instances the limitations are imposed by web-standards. Also, we don't need to link the words title or book)

Most comments are without merit or based only on Mshonle estetics taste, I would like him to express his vews and any valid points on the work discussion page. I will revert his changes so I can continue to reorganize the book, if Mshonle thinks changes should be made please do fallow the rules and ask another "moderator" to moderate...

--Panic 00:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Panic: you argue that these are separate books, yet the scope of each is the same. Even if every sentence was different in each book so long as the books covered exactly the same material that would still be a loss for contributors. I know a thing or two about C++, so tell me, which book would I submit to? For starterts, both books have the same name (despite the odd spelling of "plus" as "-/-") and there was a notice on C_plus_plus that there was a fork. This is not a good way to run an online collaborative book project. I've certainly been making a lot of changes, because the C -/- -/- book is in violation of policy. I've been deleting the links to the C -/- -/- book and replacing them with links to the C_plus_plus book. As for asethetics, you seem to have done similar activities, posting a "Foreword" on other book projects, complete with a nonsequiter of using "WEB" addresses. As for the wrongtitle template, you are mistaken. The technical limitations are limitations in web standards, including the use of + in URLs and the use of % and & signs. That template is used by many other books as well, and some limitations that you think are particular to wikibooks are actually more general. Also, the wording I changed it to matches the wikipedia wording closer. Given that other users on that template made similar changes should be a signal to you that your view is not the consensus. I would be happy to debate each and every change I've made with you. MShonle 01:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

fork issue part 2
Did you read the policies notice you "reverted". ?!?

Books can have the same subject matter. Books are not Wikipedia articles they do not overlap, they complement each other.

C -/- -/- the policies was created because of C -/- -/- (and after the fact (not fork) fork was used by me and Paddu but in the context of fork of effort not content) and the book has been aproved in a previous discussion with a moderator that it is inside the policies. (you should see the history before coming to decisions)

As I was the creator(submitter and primary writer) of most of the books I like my structure and I would allow for any other contributor to change that on a just cause (whatever it was, not only because he dislikes similar books)...

Heerr a template on wikibooks refers to Wikibooks so where is the problem ?!?

I'll gladly accept another moderator input on this matter. After your destructive actions, I take them as personal attack without warning. A simple check would show that I do active work (almost daily) so a simple talk would have sufficed to clarefy your wrong assumptions... --Panic 01:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Panic, don't try to strawman me here. I'm smarter than that. Ofcourse there can be books on the same subject matter. If you've been following what I've been writing you would know I clearly and unambiguously feel that way. But two books with the same goal cannot exist on WikiBooks. If you really want two C++ books you're going to have to find a way to make it actually be a different audience and different charters. Just saying so and changing the title of your book does not make it so. I hope you do seek other moderators about this. I want this process to be as open as possible. I also want to put this issue to rest. You mention your contributions, and I and everyone else thank you for those contributions. However, you need to acknowledge that the fork has also served to scare off possible contributors or turn off existing contributors who have left the project. We need to keep this project open to all, not to a select few who happened to get there first. MShonle 02:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

fork issue part 3

 * I must ask you to stop using the name Programming in C -/- -/- ... any other name that uses those hyphens and slashes ... correct name to use is "plus plus"

Why cant it be -/- -/- (Wikimedia limitation ?!? ) ? The representation is closest to ++ than Plus Plus (since Plus is a English word that differs form the intended "logic" of the representation of ++ (increment) and that opens the door to other interpretations, lets say in Portuguese "C Mais Mais" )

What about Programming_in_C%C2%B1%C2%B1 (try it on the URL, it's also similar, this is only to be represented on the URL other references should use ++ as possible), not the perfect solution but better than Plus Plus).


 * Why not Programming in C±±?. And actuay WikiMedia supports unicode (hope your browser does as well) so I can beat that with Programming in C✝✝. --Krischik T 20:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Let's try to remember that what the URL is not necessarily the book's name. For example, the Algorithms book is "actually" named Algorithms: Fundamental Techniques. But that's too long to type, and "AlgFundTech" would look even worse. I just can't imagine someone having such high standards for what appears in the URL that they'd petition the W3C to allow full TeX formatting. What makes better URLs are names that are easy to remember and type. MShonle 20:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the limitation is in Wikimedia and Plus Plus only reason is the relation in word vs graphic representation and so establishing a meaning that is not correct any alias to the character -/-, %C2%B1 is valid (if it doesn't cause problems on the framework and I didn't noticed any) --Panic 20:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Slashes are to be avoided because they are used for separating pages and subpages. Not being able to use + is a limitation of webstandards, not of mediawiki (WikiMedia is the organization, and Mediawiki is the software). While to you "-/-" looks like a plus, no one else thinks so. Insular naming conventions are confusing and discourage people from contributing. MShonle 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, your are wrong the URL can be parsed so it can use the ASCII "+" code (see for example del.icio.us they had a similar problem and resolved it parsing enclosed "" strings in a dif. way...

Again I admit that -/- can be confusing but that is not a problem because it's only used on URL representations every other palace can use "in house" links our a C++ overriding the "confusing representation" but I see that Wikipedia users may have problems but one of the following solutions can be used.

1) A note explaining the use of the alias. (already present but that doesn't explain in detail to possible writers...)

2) Use of the C%C2%B1%C2%B1 to avoid the "/" problem in a clean way.

You should not be moderating any more of my actions, as we have an open divergency, you should resolve the first point first before starting any more disruptive actions.

Please do explain what is your problem with my "overall" contributions as:

1) You did take actions against several works I was doing on Wikibooks, all at the same time and without notifying me or checking its history.

2) You seem to be overzealous on your "moderation" actions against me in particular, as the misnamed "fork" was already resolved before any of your actions and now after more than (5 or 6) months of using the name with -/- you are rising issues even after another moderation spoke with me about the naming conventions, the other book, created the forking policy (created because of the precedent created by me, not a fork) and said nothing in particular agains the  -/- (see talk page).

It's my opinion and common sense that any moderation actions agains registred and active users, should be preceded with talks, if a aggreement isn't reached the initiator of the action should call a 3rd person to try to reach it, and then act on it...

Format, design should only decided by active contributors if not in direct conflict with the hosting service policy. More important is that you are placing "format" or the medium over the content, the time I'm taking reformatting the work could have been used expanding the information, if one is providing content any moderations should be delt with ease as the content will remain for future editing, heck the contributor can be runned over by a truck tomorow...--Panic 22:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Panic, First, the trivial issue: I just don't think anyone sees eye-to-eye with you about your ideas of using "-/-". That use of the slash does not conform to our naming policies. Putting up explainations for it or using hexcodes are poor solutions and poor compromises. There's a perfectly good word in the English language for it: Plus. It's actually fairly common in certain contexts to name the language "C Plus Plus" instead of "C++". You just can't expect everything go the way you want it to go. In a community project such an attitude is only going to lead to hurt feelings and disappointment.


 * I can see that you are concerned with the actions I have been taking. No one wants to see their books get deleted. But in the greater interest of the community I cannot serve only you, I must serve everyone. I have asked other admins to watch what I've been doing, just for your specific concerns.


 * I disagree with the template you have been using on your "own" books and others. It's simply anti-community to tell people on the first page that they have "The right to leave." The real message you send is "you're going to have to do it my way, or bye!" We need to be more respectful of others instead of scaring them off.


 * Given all of the circumstances, I think your reactions are perfectly natural and logical. However, I'm concerned with some of the tone you have been using and the increasingly dramatic steps you've been taking lately. There isn't going to be any big shake up. Quite simply we're justing seeing one fork get deleted, as well as the many references to it. We cannot keep on sending the signal that forks and uncompromising disputes is the way we do business around here. It's obvious to me that you are unhappy and frustrated by this process. I appologize that you have been sent mixed signals for the past year. MShonle 23:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

fork issue part 4
Did anyone "contributing" to the work expressed a problem with the URL ? (the URL isn't the title nor it is expected to be, the problem seems to be an organization issue on Wikibooks and that rule wasn't broken by the use of the -/- or even using the new proposed change to eliminate the "/" problem, the URLs on Wikibooks are not so easy to use by humans as they are, so this is not a problem, if so I would agree in something like CPP, even if I did not like it)

slash does not conform to our naming policies

It did last time I checked... but I understand that it can lead to technical problems in the future, so I presented another option...

You just can't expect everything go the way you want it to go

I don't, never did, it's obvious that this is a community work, and as so the "writers" should express/debate they views on the problems "they" encounter, you aren't really a contributor to the work and your busk actions are on the line of being offensive against the ones that are contributing to the work...

No one wants to see their books get deleted

The book are GFDL so your actions in the extreme can only lead to me moving the work elsewhere and even preventing you from using parts of my contributions/work on derivative as stated on the GFDL and due to limitations on the framework (I don't look forward to it since it can lead to other examining the fragilities of the framework use of licenses/contributions/writers some of them are beginning to surface on Wikipedia (see for instance dual-license problem) but since most contributors are anonymous you can easely see the ramifications of any license depute, this would be wrong and serve no purpose), but I do like the notion of examining the limits of the Wikimedia concept, for instance at least now have a clarification on the forking policy.

I disagree with the template you have been using on your "own" books and others.

You can desagree but you as moderator should not interfere (only if they were against the rules/policies, they aren't), that section of the book you are referring to is part of the GFDL and needed to explain writes of their rights, your interpretation is that it turns people off (I don't agree with your view and since you aren't contributing to the works I would like to understand the weight of your views on the work being done by others), heck tomorrow if you would prefer all pages had a magenta background they would be obliged to use it), I did only made the change the books that I was working on, I did not impose my view on others as you are doing... Writes have discussion pages to debate that points it shouldn't be imposed by "moderators" or non contributing users (readers should be heard, but you are debating something as you are directly affected by it as a contributor, that is my side of the depute, your actions are affecting me as a writer)

"you're going to have to do it my way, or bye!"

This again is your personal view. Not even you can use such wording as a moderator you don't own the content, you do manage the medium, and should only focus on creating/elaborating guidelines and implementing them)

We need to be more respectful of others instead of scaring them off.

Herr, did you gave me any respect and aren't your actions intended on scaring me off ?!? (If I was an average user I probably would already left, the time I'm spending debating this points with you are due only to a bigger ideal, to prevent the kind of actions you are taking and/or clarify them to any other future authors.

I think your reactions are perfectly natural and logical.

Txs, I also try to understand your view point, but I can't seem to grasp its logic. I do comprehend that you think you are helping, I don't know why or whom, and even less why did you select to attack me personally.

Again there is no fork (the notice on C Plus Plus was old and as I did not intended on contributing to that book nor was I the author of it, I selected to leave it standing, again my major problem is losing time not being productive debating this kinds of "policy" matters but since you are a moderator I've opened an exception, moderation was requested some time ago it's sad that it only came  when there was no need for it...

It's obvious to me that you are unhappy and frustrated by this process.

Frustrated not unhappy, I do think that this debate in the end will be productive one way or another...

I appologize that you have been sent mixed signals for the past year.

That seems to be a problem with the framework we have to work under, I don't like it, but I think it will evolve, I do think that a kind of checks and balances should be implemented to provide some "power" to authors, it's like building a car and some one comes in, doesn't pay for it and says it should use yellow lights, square wheels and the top should be pink and run on methane...

Another point is you should fallow the Wikibooks policies and you didn't (forking) even if wrongly applied, the other is that you removed a template that by being missing, made books violate the GFDL... --Panic 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what an administrator is. First, we are not "moderators," we're administrators, or "sysops". Occasionally we can be moderate disputes, but that is only one of our roles. There isn't a single administrator who is not a contributor to Wikibooks. Indeed, an administrator is someone who, through their many contributions, have proved to the rest of the community that they can be trusted. In return, we are given some extra tools to help fight spammers and vandals. As Jimbo says, it "isn't really a big deal."


 * Also, it would not be "extreme" in any sense for you to take the GFDL'd work and move it to your own sites. I know that you don't like "to study politics" so it may be surprising for you to learn that such external forking is actually a valuable incentive that encourages contributions. For example, if I were only "working for Wikibooks" and had no freedoms with the materials I sumbitted, I might not have written as much about Lambda Calculus as I did last weekend. By using a copyleft license I can benefit from the fruits of other contributors, just as others can benefit from the fruits of my productions. MShonle 02:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, with regard to policy in the future, I've been working on a plan for charters (still in progress). The idea is that a book would have a charter, just like a student organization, coorporation, or town does, and the charter itself (different for each book) would be the "constitution" of the book and be a guide for contributors. That way, contributions would be measured against how well they follow the spirit of the charter. So, for example, one C++ book would have a charter that states it's an introductory text. Thus, some finer, esoteric details of C++ would be excluded from that book. While another C++ book might have a charter that states it's a complete reference, in which case all esoteric details would have to be included. (E.g., the beginners book probably shouldn't talk about diagraphs or trigraphs, while the reference book would.) Then there could be a rule that books with overlapping charter-goals would need to coordinate with eachother, to minimize confusion and duplication of effort. MShonle 02:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this little battle of wills from afar and I can see that this isn't getting anywhere. Panic, let's make this very simple. Can you explain to me the outsider, with barely a grasp of Javascript let alone C++, exactly how the two books are so different? THAT is the heart of this issue, I feel, moreso than arguing over representations of the addition symbol. Now much earlier on (on the other page) you said that Paddu wanted a beginner guide but you wanted an overview (or was it the other way around?)...

However I don't see how these two concepts can't coexist in the same book. Take a look at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Missions/OG Loc. I was dissatisfied with the level of detail Aya provided in the short writeup as I myself usually prefer step-by-step instructions, but I knew that just as many people prefer this brief style so I didn't want to merely replace it with my preferred method.

So what did I do? Did I fork off the guide and write an in-depth version just to get things done my way? No, I added the in-depth version below the other. In the end this idea worked out so well that I'm now purposefully including both brief and indepth methods in other game guides I write. So why can't you do that to teach C++?!?

You need to give a simple and convincing explanation of how your book is so greatly different from the other. Otherwise what Jimbo said will have to go into effect in one way or another, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. GarrettTalk 03:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Simpler version: The original book was a introductory guide to the language, split in multiple and without no real structure, every change made was debated to exhaustion, more time was spend debating things that doing work on it, Paddu prevented a new structure to be created (as per your example or a similar solution) after a small reversion war with no admin intervention the fork was created (no policy existed at the time) so a fork was "legal" even if no one wanted it but it was the only way to keep work going and it worked until a policy was created with retroactive effects and a deletion was done to a now completely dif. and bigger book that has some point in contact with the prev. but extends it much further as can be easily observed C Plus Plus is a bunch of articles (the existing structure is my work, redesigned by other user intervention and agreed upon I think by Paddu, at least he didn't seem to really care after I moved along, I didn't post my book as a fork Paddu did... (an important note must be made that Paddu did almost no contributions to the works since the time I started, but made much noise about every structural change I tried to make, and both of us tried to find moderation, the split and divergence was the only solution at that time, I took it to escape the endless reversions and debates, no contributors made any request or expressed views on the problem, then and now, only confusion was created due to the posting of the notice by Paddu)

Longer version: Well, I came to Wikibooks willing to create a "real" C++ book and found an already existing book (not to complex, an  Introduction to the language, a simple Guide, similar on what was on Wikipedia at the time and with a FAQ, and some examples,).

Paddu was the last contributor (registered and was active on the discussion page, but wasn't really contributing to the book (the work was stagnated) and he seemed to put some defect, point some problem to any change I made so I started incrementing on what was there, trying to make some changes as he pointed out  to me to make everybody happy, but soon realized that in a FAQ structure and with a bunch os scattered information on examples I could not go anywhere, and I was losing to much time debating every point with a user that did not do any work, so as I extender the information in the book, a structure seemed to be in need and  there was a need  for moving stuff from place to place, redesigning the way some stuff was explained etc...

A huge page started to be created (the Monolithic page was created), and after mining the existing scattered information for what use could be made of it (again some contributors helped but the majority didn't use the talk page or express any vision for the work as a hole (some did start commenting and adding notes on the book and I adopted the idea as it is today) after a wile more the book got to be so big that Paddu  really started to make demands for a split into chapters, I was not keen on the idea as information and the structure wasn't yet completed and asked for some more time to reach a point that it could be done and so avoiding the duplication of information on dif. chapters, and the debate got hotter and Paddu got other people (non contributors) to be involved), after a wile longer and after I did ask some other authors on the web to use some documents and posted some messages on the newsgroups for C++, some people started to came and contribute more actively (note: not Paddu, he never did any real work after I "took over" the project), then as the talk page got longer I restructured it so I could give some order to it, and fallow any comments made, again no real contributors participated only Paddu and I think a moderator (watever, Sysop) and create some standards, that Paddu and other non contributing users didn't like, (the created standard didn't do much more that expressing the rules that were already used on the book, or expressed on the talk page so far), after it was done Paddu reverted it (and a small reversion war took place) and then reverted some parts of the work itself at that point I and him had agreed on using transclusion (Im not a wikipedia fanatic nor I do love to spend time debating stuff and "losing" time trying to make head and tail of the "rules", it was Paddu himself that gave me the knowledge and information needed to get going with the work).

I reverted some of Paddu changes and Paddu proposed a new structure to the talk page, I didn't like that (Paddu even no providing content started posting messages asking for moderation and trying to get more people involved in the debate, as it's natural I was pushed to a debate and asked/needed to give some explanations and defend my point of view also and for some time was spending more time debating the issues with every other person who asked about "this" or "that" and proposed solutions at a point I was so mad that I told Paddu that due to no one appeared to be able to moderate the problem the solution was to fork the work and revert the C Plus Plus to a stage more or less before the Monolithic version came to be, the reversion was done (not by me) and I moved to a new C++ book to get on with the work and implement a more complete, detailed structure, Paddu got ballistic and posted some forking notices and asked people not to contribute to any book, I change some of the more aggressive wording and got to work on the other book, all was well and going fine until some one created a new rule on forks (no problem there) but another admin Garrett :) as was expected came and (grrr) deleted the bigger work without following the policy (changing some urls etc) after we got to a common ground Garrett asked for a merge and I started working on that (more time lost formatting the work), then some one proposed for a name change saying that the Programming: was wrong (gezz lots of transclusions some templates and as many redirects on the talk page got mangled due to Garrett actions) I started renaming the pages at the same time as I extracted the data from the Monolithic version then Mshonle came and in one day reverted a lot of pages, broke the GFDL by renaming a template, attacked my other books, and used really rude comments on its changes), that is why we are here at this point in time, no work being done, Mshonle is reverting much of the work I did (continues to use rude and I must say misleading comments to my changes, not even realizing that much of the original work on C Plus Plus and other books he mangled was done by me).

You can/should easily check  this hole mess doing a search on google for Panic2k4 you can even find a post by Paddu that Jimbo responded to (as you did), and if you take some real time to examine the history of some pages the Plus Plus talk my talk Paddus talk etc to get a proper idea of the subject.

I did try to find out my prev. talks with you (Garrett) to show Mshonle but after his actions I realy didn't go to the trouble, he seemed mindset on provoking me into a debate with unkind comments and reversions and finding problems were none existed.--Panic 04:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a lot going on there, so I can only hit the key points: (1) You have no grounds for saying I "broke the GFDL," and I've seen you repeat this pattern of dramatic claims before. (2) I've mostly been mitigating any damage done to the other books, one of them was when you pasted some boiler-plate descriptions on several books, claiming they were books about "peer to peer", although only one of them was actually a peer-to-peer book. (3) I've been removing links to the C -/- -/- book, and part of that was removing the use of a template. The banner advertizing your own version of the C++ should not have been placed on other books. (4) It's not the end of the world. You can of course keep all of the work you have done and it won't be lost. It just won't be on wikibooks in 10 days. We cannot condone anti-community, anti-contributor actions. Dividing efforts between volunteers is so counter-productive it's equivalent to damage. (5) I will be watching any changes to the C Plus Plus book. MShonle 06:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

fork issue part 5
1) Examine your actions, if you remove the authors part of a work you break the GFDL (you did that).


 * [Sorry, that was an honest mistake. Could you tell me which books were affected? MShonle 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * Sorry you have to check your own edits --Panic 19:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Aw, come on, not even a clue? MShonle 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Check the "foreword" linking as it enforces the authors of the books, that is requested in the GFDL--Panic 22:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

2) It was a work in progress no "contributor" requested moderation, you had at least on my POV right to revert you could have requested, altered or asked, not doing a esthetic correction to works you are not evolved nor are under depute, your opinions are welcome but you are placing them above other... PS: And you should try to moderate your comments as you alter stuff some can be really anoing...


 * (revert to last version by Krischik, ends up Panic's idea of "merge" is to delete good material and to replace it with worse material)


 * (Programming in C -/- -/-: ANSI C -/- -/- 98 Keywords Table moved to

Programming:C plus plus/Keywords: -/- -/- is an unprofessional, sloppy name)


 * Programming:C (remove obtrusive banners)


 * [It's my opinion that the banners were obtrusive. Such a level of promotion imposed on other books is against the spirit of the project. As for the worse material comment, you replaced a perfectly fine section of the book with a modified version that had broken formatting. It was also rather odd to me that when you were "doing the merge" you chose first to combine the sections of the two books which were virtually identical. MShonle 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * Well you opinion has the same weight as mine and since I was contributing those books I had more right to do any change and was able to discuss them with any other contributor, for instance the banner on C was not placed there by me, I tried to contribute to that book some time ago and one of the prev. contributors reverted my changes and asked that I comply with the structure that was in place, I did not made any more edits to that book since I was busy with other works...--Panic 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a very valid point, but I'm affraid I'm not the only one with that opinion. The history logs speak for themselves. MShonle 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

3) The reversions you did were not called for, no one requested them the pages in question were not against any policy, and you did them because of your esthetics POV, the "obtrusive banners" is subject matter that relates to the book topic lets say a reader that is interested in C will probably like to know C++ or OOP or Java for instance in the C book, and it's a way to get people to cross pollinate similar works, you know as good as I that the languages share common points with each other..

4) That is your opinion, I've not performed any actions on those lines, you did.

Dividing efforts between volunteers

You are not part of the C++ community here are you? I never noticed you writing there (you came, you saw, you judged and execute sentence this is not due process) and I've replied to anyone requesting information about the subject matter, I've not tried to impose my views and I'm open to debates, please do provide bases for your accusations...


 * [But the very point of this exercise, and why we are deleting your fork, is because there's currently an environment that is counter to encouraging work. Given the reasons why we must remove the book from Wikibooks (need I repeat you are free to take it elsewhere?) it should not be surprising that many in the community have shied away from contributing, including myself. MShonle 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * It's not a FORK, the other stuff I agree with you but it's better to fork than enter a reversion war at least content is been added (I would probaly have some better ideas to the fork policy as it is), FORKS do encourage work, if you were willing to contribute you should have stated your probles on the talk page not acting as you did...--Panic 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have to act to help the community, not to satisfy your own internal standards about what I need to be doing or not doing. I mostly see this episode as tragic, and I'd rather not be disturbing your creations and instead just let them be. (I can guarantee you that I will not disturb them on any other server or wiki. In fact, I would fight tooth and nail that the Programming:C plus plus book include a link to your book in the references section if you were to move it elsewhere.) But what's been going on on this wiki has to stop. MShonle 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I appologize that you have been sent mixed signals for the past year.

The problem is that the policies are in constant mutation, and even the administrators seems not to fallow them or know them by hearth, even you in your recent actions did violate several...

5) As soon as I can make the changes I'll merge the 2 books as requested by Garrett before any of your actions, if you can try to revert some of what you did or if you feel dif. write about it on the books talk page, the book url for me is irrelevant and can be settled easily (the closest alias to the "proper" name is last one I proposed, if wikimedia evolves the name can be fixed later....) --Panic 17:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * [I have a copy of the first edition of Stroustrup right here in my hands. The library of congress data says this as the alternate title: "II. Title: C plus plus programming language." Here's the alternate title given to Stroustrup's The Design and Evolution of C++: "II. Title: Design and Evolution of C plus plus." MShonle 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * I have state again and again Plus Plus is English centric, even your own find shows that, again Plus Plus has not the same spirit that ++ you know that it means "increment", well Plus is also used in French, I think the last proposed naming scheme by me would solve all the problems (plus, minus sign is the most graphical similar sign we can get on Wikimedia), as I do intend on translating the book and I'm the only active contributor to it I don't see how your POV should be enforced (I agree that "/" is a problem and it should be fixed), my main problem with C Plus Plus is that it is a bad fix to bypass a limitation on the framework if people feel that lets say C Sharp, C Plus Plus C -/- -/- is wrong and do give value to the url they should probably be contributing to Wikipeadia code and solve the problem once and for all...--Panic 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Typically things on the "en." subdomain tend to have a little English bias. Yes. MShonle 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"C plus pus" vs. "C -/- -/-"
Well, I think that the C++ community shoud decide for themself - they should have a vote on it - just like the we did at Ada Programming - see Talk:Ada_Programming/New_Name_needed for details. If they decide on "C -/- -/-" so it be.

Just a few suggestions:


 * 1) I had a call on news:comp.lang.ada for additional votes from our readers. Nothing came from it but at least I tried.
 * 2) Subpages provide automated back links which - unlike manual back links - work nicely in transclusions.

--Krischik 07:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what I did for the Computer Science:Data Structures book is have _content pages that each chapter would transclude in addition to having the nav bar. Then the all pages view would just transclude the _contents, and not use any navs. But I think in a greater sense there might be certain advantages to wikibooks following the same naming conventions. I'm working out some plans of a system where books/series of books, and bookshelves all have charters. Thus, a shelf might be able to better organize itself by only allowing books that fit the (widely approved) charters. The VFD process could become much more streamlined, and most likely the activities would be replaced with charter approvals. This kind of fits into Aya's idea of allowing only books that are on a list can be created. But many more details need to be worked out. MShonle 08:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As I'm the only one working on the book and C Plus Plus has been static for some time now I don't think that solution would apply and I don't think a social network of "false" readers would also provide any insight on the problem, that solution is based on how "visible" you are, as I don't intend on having any visibility I'm against any such campaigns (this one of my problems with most of Mshonle actions, they seem intended on generating friction and buzz, not in producing any results)--Panic 19:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you be satisfied if we kept "Programming:C -/- -/-" up as a redirect page to the "Programming:C plus plus" book? MShonle 19:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we have enough readers (18 at least) and contributers (3 main contributers and 10 more in the 2nd row.) - thank you very much. And yes: I do marketing as well - I contribute so the book is helpfull - and to be helpfull people have to know about it. --Krischik T 20:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you Krischik and you should state that you are talking about Ada Programming, but I don't have you luck as far as contributers goes so a debate there is betewen Me, myself and I :) and a administratior on policy covered issues, what Ive stated is that MShonle actions on my works (not only the C++ book are well beyond the wikibooks policies.--Panic 02:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

=Q & A=

This is the last action I will try to come to any result on this topic so I ask a simple reply if possible...

A merge of the work was being done. The naming of the book was being adressed as can be seen on the book talk page. The single page problem was being adressed.

Your actions were disruptive and could probably be done better.

Q: Did any one requested moderation on any of you problems with C -/- -/- ?

A: [I'm not even sure what this question means. MShonle 20:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * Aw, come on, not even a clue?--Panic 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's got so many things that are unclear. Are you talking about the -/- name issue again, are you talking about the book itself? It's unclear. MShonle 23:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well since you were the one that pointed out the "things", so you should know what the so called problems are, I have only identified a new one the use of the "/" the others were resolved and no one before you started your actions pointed them out to me...--Panic 23:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, you've seriously lost me here. What are you talking about? MShonle 00:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Q: Can you live with the C%C2%B1%C2%B1 in the URL ? (best you try creating a page with that URL, a fix or a vote can be done later if any contributors ask for it)

A: [Can you live with that, and your -/-'s as being redirects to C_plus_plus? URLs should be easy to remember and type. As Strunk and White say, prefer the standard to the offbeat. Given the community here, the WP community, and the library of congress cataloging it's hardly seen as a failure that we need to name the book C_plus_plus. MShonle 20:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * The history on C Plus Plus should be preserved, since Paddu and other contributers even Wikibooks policy requests that, I will have no problem on doing the reverse, redirecting C Plus Plus to a non "/" url as for the use of any alias urls aren't really human friendly on Wikibooks so to ease the moving, redirect, transclusion and edits, C%C2%B1%C2%B1 will probably help as spaces are turned into "_" and it's easier to search and replace urls off line (hole pages) if they are kept all the same by simply "force" copy-paste operations when urls are concerned...--Panic 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't try it. For the moment don't rename anything, ok? MShonle 23:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If I can't rename the url I can't continue with the merger and do any work on the book, I think that is self evident--Panic 23:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just stick with the URLs you got. MShonle 00:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Q: Will you fix some of reversions you did and if totaly agains it state so on the discussion page?

A: [I will fix the mistaken deletion of the authors list, yes, unless someone else gets to it first. But I can only "fix" what was broken. MShonle 20:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]

Q: Will you help merge the 2 books?

A: [I will keep an eye on the C_plus_plus book and be sure that what's added is factually accurate, non-biased, pertinent, well-written or at least easily changable into such. But you should understand that I am in no obligation to do so. MShonle 20:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * In other words, as I undestand it, you will not provide any help on merging the works and probably will no contribute content--Panic 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't promise to work on it, and I won't promise not to work on it. I promise only to serve the community by ending the fork. MShonle 23:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What part of "there is no fork" and "the merge was underway before your intervention" can't you understand?--Panic 23:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I will understand "there is no fork" quite well in two Wednesday's time. MShonle 00:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Txs, as soon as you can please put the pages in its proper state so I can continue the work, or move the book to the next stage of the policy you are addressing, as I have stated Im the only (registred/active) contributor to the work... --Panic 19:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "pages in its proper state." MShonle 20:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Being able to repair the "/" problem by moving it to a another location and fix all the mess, if contributor request a vote will be made later to substitute or use another url--Panic 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about namespaces right now. The page names should remain as they are for the next two weeks. MShonle 23:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: This is equal to terrorist tactics http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Maxberger you are spreadin missinformation, escalating the issue and displaing the issue as a fait-accompli--Panic 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not spreading misinformation. I'm spreading the fact that Programming:C -/- -/- will be deleted soon. Seemed like it would be good for him to know. MShonle 23:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Marking a work for deletion doesn't mean that it will be deleted, you as an Administrator know perfectly well (or should) the steps it takes, as the only contributor to the book I have requested that you failing to revert your steps, move it to the next step ASAP not in 2 weeks so we are able to resolve the issue quickly--Panic 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just a single admin. If you don't trust me I can ask one of the many other admins or bureaus to do the deletion. I do hope you have by now made a local copy of all of the work you have done. You should be proud of it. MShonle 00:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * (talk page redirects are evil)


 * Transclusions would resolve the problem but due to the proxy setup on Wikibooks they take time to become effective, since the pages are empty a single location is easier to fallow, if contributor object or request than it would need a redesign the issue would be addressed, if you can please remove and fix (revert) you comments on the foreword talk page a move to the redirect talk would be ok--Panic 23:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

=RightToLeave= (remove RightToLeave comment)

Will you please stop ?!? RightToLeave is a corner stone of the GFDL hiding the information from writers isn't correct I would argue with you that point also, if you were collaborating on the works you are editing... --Panic 00:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That section of the work isn't valid only on Wikibooks it's needed for any port of the work to any other interactive medium, I would probably include the text of the GFDL but it's lengthy, but any port/copy of the work would miss that information also, probably a small description of the GFDL should also be included and a link to the hole text--Panic 00:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Telling users on the first page they have a right to leave is a good way of scaring off contributors. It's quite obvious on any webpage that you don't have to read it. And it's quite obvious that no one visiting this page would suddenly feel an obligation to be a part of the project. But links to MeatBall used in some official capacity as you are doing is very confusing for others.


 * No where does the GNU FDL require for you to link to that page. Trust me, if the GNU FDL required you to link to a page, it would be a GNU page. The only page you need to worry about linking to is right here, which is already referenced on every page the reader will see. MShonle 00:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the issiues 1- The note is in the writers section 2-If I print the work http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_of_Peer-to-Peer_%28P2P%29&printable=yes I don't get a copy of the license nor a direct link to get one or a mail address (if in a paper version)--Panic 00:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with Mshonle, there is no way we want to be telling potential future Wikibookians they have the right to leave. Serge 08:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are saying, as I understand it, is that the best way to go is (against the Wikimedia spirit) by editorial ways hide the truth from future writers, if even some administrator are confused about the GFDL the future seems dark to me, I think people should think by themselves the interpretation of the information provided is up to them, and no one should claim to know how others will interpret at best if something is wrongly explained it should be corrected not edited out...--Panic 02:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The wikispirit is to encourage contributions, not give them some libertarian lecture. But I think you misunderstand what I say. Do you have a phone number and time zone? MShonle 04:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If I had used a complete description of the rights, I would agree with you, but all I did, to clarefy writers, was to provide the links (I think they were indicated by Jimbo), about the direct link to me sorry, you can use the e-mail on my user page (I'm also on IRC:telepac.ptnet.org:6667 #C++ or #GNUTELLA) but for all to benefit all stuff wikimedia related should be dealth here, so it can be used for future reference if needed.--Panic 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

=A Proposition=

ok, here's an idea:


 * Use the name c_plus_plus, for technical reasons (i kinda like -/-, but the technical argument is unbeatable)


 * What used to be the -/- -/- books gets to be the main content. It is much more readable and easier to understand.


 * What used to be the plus plus book becomes the "reference section"


 * Topics should be explained in the explanation section, and appropriate tables etc. should be linked from the reference section.

I know I haven't contributed, but I really like Panic's content and i would hate to loose it. I'd help moving / renaming if needed.

-- Max


 * But isn't Panic's one the indepth guide? Hmmm... I forget. Anyway, I suggested this earlier myself and I think it would work very well. GarrettTalk 01:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, and not 80% based on the other work as I've seen you post somewhere, at this moment I'm very frustrated at Wikibooks, policy rules have effect on previous works without any consideration for the contributors, administrator seem have editorial rights that goes beyond the scope of policies and can or seem to be able to implement esthectic views on works they aren't working on, nor under dispute by its contributors.
 * It was my idea that due to you administration action some time ago the subject of the possible fork (that I still say it wasn't really a content fork as the prev. work was reverted on the original book), was closed and I was working on on a segretation by chapters of the Monolithic version as requested and the merging of contents of both works, that was what I was doing before the intervention of this administrator, that possibly by lack of previews administration work thought that the situation was still under some kind of dispute
 * The work if GFDL you can do whatever you think best Max even copy it to another hosting place and link there for your needs and extend it, I have a backup also but I'll not release it in a public forum for now, sorry. If you do fallow this option just look up the GFDL limitations and if it can be publicly edited/extended please do post the url on my talk page so I can collaborate on it. Txs--Panic 02:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Max. I think we should instead merge in the content into the existing Programming:C_plus_plus pages. In a little bit I'll be renaming the pages to use the "/" notation. What this will do is create automatic chapter navigation (so that I can remove the manual chapter navigation, which conflicts with transclusions). Then, I'll make any other changes to the submodules in order to get a proper "Print Version" of the book up (as an uber page).

But I don't like the idea of effectively renaming the -/- -/- book to plus_plus. That would basically set up a precedence to reward people who fork. This particular kind of fork divided contributions and confused future contributors (just as you yourself were confused where exactly to contribute). I'm not sure what you mean by having the book become a reference section. Could you elaborate? MShonle 02:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * False, the policy was created after the fact, no reward is expected only consideration, and the work you are doing was already being done, without your editorial changes. I think Max referes to the structure as seen in the Index page...--Panic 02:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * [Programming:C plus plus:All Chapters] as I have said the problems with that solution are:
 * 1) TOCs will have to be hidden and a new TOC maintened by hand.
 * 2) The Previous, Up, Next artifacts can't be removed, can they?
 * --Panic 02:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter when the policy was made. The only special circumstances around this is how long we've been dividing/scaring off C++ contributions. But reload that page in a little while, and we'll see if it's cleaned up. OK? (And of course the Prev/Up/Next can be removed.) MShonle 03:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be added to every policy and new ones that they have a retroactive effect or if default stated in evidence and any that doesn't state the exception--Panic 03:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A short introduction to bureaucracies: Typically new policies are only created when something "has gone wrong." It's like how I can't go to the movies on time with my Aunt Selma. Just before we're out the door she's like "oh, let me check for my keys" and then "oh, is the burner on?" All of these checks are there because, probably, at one point she forgot her keys, and at another point she forgot to turn off the burner. When a mistake happens you want to be sure that it doesn't happen again. That's why large companies have so much paper work and take so long to do things. It's a fairly natural state for things to get more bureaucratic the older they get. When something happens, you review the situation and put in policy to be sure it won't happen again. MShonle 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

=Merge=

Ok, here's what I see when I look at the plus plus book: 3 chapters with actual explanation content: Hello World, Variables, Data Types. These are more or less in more details in the -/- -/- book (however, these could/should actually be merged). Then some good references (but not explanations): The reference tabls section, and the idioms page. Both are good and necessary, but as a reference (and definitely not for people new to programming, only for people new to c++). Between these (the content and the references) there is a huge gap - and that information is in c -/- -/- Max 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

For the page structure: Are you using the Flat style ? If not, please link me to the current naming policy 03:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Max, I've been changing it to use something like the flat structure. MShonle 04:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, the C Plus Plus content is older, not corrected and static, since any of the so called fork (see Dysposia page were Paddu reference on it not really being a fork) you should consider all content on C -/- -/- up-to-date and with all needed additions and as I was a contributor in both works the editorial rights should be mine not yours, so I again state that the structure on C -/- -/- minus the use of "/" is the best, more, again I state the objection to the "plus" but I can let you change it all to your best editorial views and proceed with a vote (more work but now it's a point I will make sure it's addressed, even if the merge is dropped and only one work stands, I would like to know if any contributors will have problems with the name change as it goes beyond me the importance you are placing on the url of the book)
 * I'm affraid you don't have any "editorial rights" that are exclusively yours. Any one has the right to edit. When there is a dispute the issue must be discussed. MShonle 04:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, a non human usable url is best because:
 * 1) Easier to perform transclusions, edits, additions and keep only one url in the work (in place of "C Plus Plus" "C_Plus Plus" "C_Plus_Plus" (simple examples) that will make it harder (as you are probably noticing, on changing parts or all the location of the book (future policies may implement new locations)
 * 2) Books that are not addressed by a easy and direct url will provide more visibility to the Wikibooks as a hole
 * 3) There are more points but I'll build up the list for a future vote...
 * PS: Anyone is free to edit my comments (for miss-spelling) haven't English as my main language the, -grumble- SpellChecker not doing it's work and speedy writing I'm aware that there are plenty of errors.--Panic 03:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Use the Google toolbar, which has a spellchecker. MShonle 04:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By "your structure" you mean your order of content? If so, here's an idea: Provide multiple index pages, that reference to the same content, but in a different order. I, for example would probably like a different order for beginners (or is that a bad idea?) --Max 03:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What ordering did you have in mind? If it's better, then it's better. Solutions that push the decision "to let the reader decide" are typically poor because they are non-decisions. MShonle 04:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but wait utill the actual work is done and we can structure it, I think the order now is the best for any intruduction to the language but as I did it all without any other inputs...--Panic 03:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Herr, MShonle it seems someone referred to having "Programming:" as a location was bad (it should be on the C -/- -/- talk), again if you adopting stuff from C -/- -/- be careful to add the needed reference to the other works and the author section--Panic 03:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Programming:" is a namespace. It's a separate issue. In the meantime, we'll keep the C++ book in this namespace. MShonle 04:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the image considered a part of the cover changing it and adding a new one would probably be possible if using the 2 but I think it cant be removed (again if you are adopting C -/- -/-)--Panic 04:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What can't be removed? MShonle 04:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)