User talk:Panic2k4/Archive3


 * I think the issue is there's no universal copyright law and definition for author.

Yes there is, there are UN copyright treaties, that become universal (number of signatories) and are adopted by all countries (not rouge states like China, Cuba, even Brazil is known to have a different understanding on copyright definitions), but Wikimedia Foundation is registered on the US so US law is what we (users) must comply with...


 * How does the author fit into deciding this?

The author is the creator of the work under wikimedia every edit that contributes content to a work grants a derived work status to the result, if the work is merged that also has rules to be fallowed on the GDFL, we must keep the reference to used works (ie: as you have moved content from C++ Programming to other works you had to keep a reference of probably its author (me) or the original work (a previews version of C++ Programming), but small (a phrase or rewording), spell checking or esthetically edits doesn't contribute content so that edits doesn't grant authorship to a work (translations do). ( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp ) and a not so clear ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law )


 * wikibooks, is that its a community effort

yes all users with any kind of edits (even the ones that doesn't grant authorship), I think its 20 edits, grants a user rights to vote on general wikibooks policies (but those policies must fallow the GFDL).

But to become part of a wikibook community content contributions must be made so a derived work is created in the eyes of the GFDL.


 * Some changes last longer then others, but nothing lasts forever.

Yes it does if not on wikibooks on private copies, mirror images and if not deleted on wikibooks (deletes are not destroyed), in the book history, if I claim a copyright violation on a book by a user a previous version can be restored, every contribution (content) to a existing work is a derived work, heck we may even call it a fork (that may depend on the size as per GFDL).


 * Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure or symbol against the will of the owner/governing body. (from wikipedia)

If we take that to the letter that was what you did, note that I'm not calling you a vandal because I think your actions were based in a wrong POV of the moral a legal laws one must obide under wikibooks and the GFDL, and I expect you to see your error...


 * Users are people not part of the community as decided by the community and authors. Users don't get to make any decisions if there's disagreements. Is this correct?

Yup that is correct, users (readers and small editors even anonymous content contributors) do not have the right to claim a vote in a book community they can ask and propose changes but ultimately it falls to the book community to accept or refuse them, this can even lead to a fork (my fork, that I clame wasn't a real fork was based on my different view for the developing of the book and its structure with the previous authors/editors) as they have dropped the work and a merge was imposed (wrongly) my view (as the single active author seems to have become dominant, not by choice but because a book can become orphan of authors or see it's community dissolve with time) a book will outlive any author.


 * BTW do you have any questions for me on my POV that you would like to understand better?

No if I hadn't understood you POV from the beginning I would be really pissed off. You POV is that you are part of the book community, I could even let your changes to become valid (as you didn't have any bad intentions), but I as it seems am the sole voice on the book community you altered, claim you are not, mostly because some of the changes are against my views for the book, and the due to the degree of you contribution to it. Even if you had provide content it's my view that you a latter contributor to the work should at least respect and give some degree of value to others that were there before. (this last part can't be solved by the GFDL but only by a new policy since we now have a rule that prevents forks on wikibooks) --Panic 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The author is the creator of the work under wikimedia every edit that contributes content to a work grants a derived work status to the result, if the work is merged that also has rules to be fallowed on the GDFL, we must keep the reference to used works (ie: as you have moved content from C++ Programming to other works you had to keep a reference of probably its author (me) or the original work (a previews version of C++ Programming), but small (a phrase or rewording), spell checking or esthetically edits doesn't contribute content so that edits doesn't grant authorship to a work (translations do). ( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp ) and a not so clear ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law )

References to its authors (including you) is available to anyone who looks at its page edit history even when moved this is preserved. There's a page here on wikibooks regarding using contents from here on other websites or if printed out. I think it makes refernece to the edit history for finding authors as a means to satisfy GFDL requirements. I can find the link for it if you want. Do you disagree with edit history being a valid source for a authors or document history section?

Referring to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp:

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

I think Wikibooks contents may fall under "common property". Not sure how US law would interprete orginal authorship though for contents contributed here, since usually/typically there are many authors and there's the GFDL to take into concideration which grants rights not covered by copyright law. I was going by the rather broad GFDL definition of what modification seems to mean rather then what copyright protects and considers to be changes. I agree that US law probably doesn't cover spell checking as being protected or reconized as difference enough to be protected or reconized as an author. By esthetical edits do you mean according to what US copyright law says?

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Again I was going by what seems like a rather broad definition of modification in the GFDL. I may be a bit parniod in trying to comply with GFDL requirements in this regard. I don't think an authors section is needed since edit history fills that purpose, but since its there, all the names listed in the edit history that aren't validism and aren't anonymous users may need to be there to satisfy GFDL requirements. I'm no lawyer though so I don't know as well as a lawyer would if this would be overkill or not.


 * But to become part of a wikibook community content contributions must be made so a derived work is created in the eyes of the GFDL.

Could you explain more your POV on content contributions that the GFDL requires to create a derived work? Perhaps referring to specific wordings in the GFDL that cover this? I don't see anything myself in the GFDL about specific requirements to be considered derived work.

Yup that is correct, users (readers and small editors even anonymous content contributors) do not have the right to claim a vote in a book community they can ask and propose changes but ultimately it falls to the book community to accept or refuse them,

Did you mean to include "they can make changes" in there somewhere too? As in "they can ask and propose changes and make changes, but ultimately it falls on the book community to accept or refuse them"? I was not trying to imply that anyone has the right to claim a vote in a book community, mearly that if they meet wikibook requirements that they do, which I understand to be the same as voting on policies. I guess your POV on this requirement is "if the community regonizes there right to a vote". I also understand that votes concerning book contents are to be avoided and discussion should take place instead to try to reach a concensus even with users who aren't regonized to be members of the community, in order to encourage contributions. Note I'm trying to make a distinction between "discussion", "vote" and "decision" here, but I can understand your POV that "ultimately it falls on the book community to accept or refuse them."

No if I hadn't understood you POV from the beginning I would be really pissed off. You POV is that you are part of the book community, I could even let your changes to become valid (as you didn't have any bad intentions), but I as it seems am the sole voice on the book community you altered, claim you are not, mostly because some of the changes are against my views for the book, and the due to the degree of you contribution to it. Even if you had provide content it's my view that you a latter contributor to the work should at least respect and give some degree of value to others that were there before. (this last part can't be solved by the GFDL but only by a new policy since we now have a rule that prevents forks on wikibooks) --Panic 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think I am part of the book community. I don't think Wikibooks supports your POV on this, but I could be wrong. Basically my POV is I'm a part of the book community because I think Wikibook rules support that I am. If you can prove that I'm wrong, I'll admit that I'm wrong. I think it only takes contributing with good intentions to be considered a member of a book community and a person is no longer a member of a book community if they don't contribute for awhile or starts to vandalising or otherwise does things with bad intentions. I don't have a problem with trying to respect others, but we may have a different POVs on respect. There is Etiquette, but its not a policy or anything, so it probably doesn't satisfy your last part.

I think we could discuss our POVs on the wikibook and come to a reasonable concensus we both could agree to if your open to discussion and willing to agree to any comprised made between us. My main concern was thinking that you thought you owned the book which you've made clear you don't think you do. My main concern now is are you open to doing so without falling on your POV of decision making or if we still need to work out difference of opinion of whether I'm a member of the community. I find it disrepectful to hold "ultimate decision" over my head or anyone elses, especially with such a small contribution base, thats why its a concern to me. --darklama 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again... As I said before this discussion is becoming exasperating you repeat points we already came to an understanding or that is not related to the specific differences on our POV...


 * I think it makes refernece to the edit history for finding authors as a means to satisfy GFDL requirements.

Read the GFDL when you edited a work and moved part of it to another that is a merge, even if the original source can then constitute a derived work (as it was altered, even if no content was added only removed), you must respect the original author list, derived work list etc.. as per GFDL if not you are violating the original authors copyright...

I refuse to teach you law or common sense but I now start to believe that either you are lacking a bit of knowledge and ability to use both or this may be some plot form alien to take over the world starting by making lose my time and mind :)


 * Do you disagree with edit history being a valid source for a authors or document history section?

Of course not, but not every edit there are contributions to works, even a user page edit can count for a user to vote on wikibooks...


 * I think Wikibooks contents may fall under "common property".

Well I think you should take your pills because you must be mad :), wikibooks are GFDL, the GFDL protect authors copyrights (the work) no more no less, if you are referring to "common property" as common to all authors then you are correct.


 * GFDL to take into concideration which grants rights not covered by copyright law

Again you should really register yourself into a psychiatric hospital :), some things you say just don't have any logic... Do you know anything of law ?!?! The bases of any country law is the constitution, everything else is just derived from there like a building that grows from it base or even better a tree that has it's root on the constitution, you can't be from the US (I'm not) but your view are a bit bent. If there is a right (or a moral law etc...) there is a reflection of it on the law or a interpretation that refers to it can be gathered from it.


 * modification seems to mean rather then what copyright protects and considers to be changes.

GFDL is a copyright license so you have to take the base definition if it isn't redefined or changes in the GFDL


 * esthetical edits

These are not defined only on the US copyright, I have my own country copyright law (I use it as a mouse pad) and states more or less the same thing as I said before all law cames from things like moral or just good sense (well the basic part) then the politicians fuck it all up to serve their interest...


 * I don't think an authors section is needed since edit history fills that purpose, but since its there, all the names listed in the edit history that aren't validism and aren't anonymous users may need to be there to satisfy GFDL requirements.

Do you try hard to came up with this nonsense ?!? or are you joking with me... Read the GFDL at least there is stated black on white about the author section and previous works references, what you and me are discussing are not our likes or dislikes, this is how things ARE.


 * Could you explain more your POV on content contributions that the GFDL requires to create a derived work?

Anything that is not Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents and I think there is a limit in size but you have to check it on your own that is not the basis of our discussion as you DIDN'T contribute anymore that is listed here, except for the violation I have already enumeration on my (and others) copyrights.


 * Yup that is correct, users (readers and small editors even anonymous content contributors) do not have the right to claim a vote in a book community they can ask and propose changes but ultimately it falls to the book community to accept or refuse them,

Herr, small editors == "they can make changes" and heck I made it clear on the front page and I even included a section to guide contributers... What is your point ?!? That if anyone makes a move against my views I would simply revert it ?!? Did I do it to you, even if I'm the single voice of the book community and could by error be confused with a dictator I try to reach a consensus, I have yet to impose my will on others, but I must inform you that we are getting to the my limit on discussing this matter...


 * mearly that if they meet wikibook requirements that they do

They don't...


 * I also understand that votes concerning book contents are to be avoided and discussion should take place instead to try to reach a concensus even with users who aren't regonized to be members of the community, in order to encourage contributions.

Well I do revert pages from time to time without reaching a consensus with the spammer, but I'm taking some time to address your problems, and you can take a look on the book discussion pages...


 * Yes I do think I am part of the book community.

Well I don't and I've now given all the information you needed to reach the same concept...


 * I don't think Wikibooks supports your POV on this, but I could be wrong.

Well you probably are, if not wikibooks would be violating the GFDL and could be liable in court and as I have shown with graphical examples your view simply couldn't work, it would be chaos...


 * If you can prove that I'm wrong, I'll admit that I'm wrong

I did some thousand lines ago, your problem seems to be grasping how law and wikibooks work or even the objective of it. Another example (We have Monalisa (the painting) it's now 2050 and it's decreed that it will fall into GFDL, you make a mustache on it and sign you name next to the master, is that right? does it fell right to you? )


 * a person is no longer a member of a book community if they don't contribute for awhile

Using even your POV this is just wrong, moraly and against the spirit of the wikibooks...


 * My main concern now is are you open to doing so without falling on your POV of decision making or if we still need to work out difference of opinion of whether I'm a member of the community

I, at this moment, will not recognize you as part of the C++ Programming community, as in author or by having contributed content to the book, I recognize and value your work in correcting spelling, the motivation of trying to change the words of phrases so it could be easier to understand to beginners and a will to try to better the work nothing more.

Sorry if I'm being a bit sarcastic but if I can't take some pleasure with the time I'm losing here I would have lost my mind by now...

I'm reaching the limit here, can you find 5 people that in a vote will have a majority (agree with your view, 3 can even be common wikibooks users), if you have difficulty finding willing people just search for books with the author section make some changes to it and add your name (please don't select the other book I'm working on as this would not bring any new people to the discussion). :) --Panic 07:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

= Me and darklama =

Well, since we agree in more than we disagree and since we are the only ones working on the book in question you could have just asked my opinion, it would involve less trouble than adding tags...

C++ Programming can and intends to be everything to everyone on the C++ topic, that is the scope of the book, I wish to contribute content were I like and don't expect you to contribute in the same way (Its good that we don't see eye to eye in many thing this only increases diversification and add different POVs to the book), but I take it very badly when you remove content (mostly added by me) from the book, this is were we have a major breakdown on what a contribution to it and edits in good faith means.

The main page will be changed as we agree on the TOC, I like some of your concepts and like you think that some chapters need to be fractioned (that was approved and is a policy of the book), I even agree that a different TOC can and should be displayed to the readers and so avoid content removal and live with your restricted view for the book (I agree that could be helpful l to some readers).

The book was and is far from being stagnant and I only fight for my own view points and work, I as you know perfectly well what our problem is but there isn't a easy solution to it, well, at least I do not delete or revert all of your changes and I'm working around our divergences, and having good faith and accepting some changes that I personally dislike.

We should agree to disagree, that involves each of us trying to respect each others points of view and avoid steeping on each others toes, we agree in more things than we disagree so work can be accomplished if we fallow this simple rules, the other points need clarification for both sides and that will take some time to be reached. --Panic 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that we simply have to agree to disagree on whats contributions and whats done in good faith, since we cannot seem to agree on it.

My only restricted view of the book per say is that I think the book should try to avoid getting too deeply involved in subjects that requires knowledge about a specific operating system and hardware. I consider it an extention of NPOV if you will, in that it should try to remain neutral in favoring specific operating systems or hardware over another. Trying to be compleat by describing every possible OS, hardware and tool combination imaginable would be one way of remaining neutral, but I don't think its possible and could make it confusing to figure out what applies to what cases with what OS version with what toolset version with what hardware, etc. So stripping such specialization from the general contents makes since to me. If you can find some way to keep it sorted in its own sections like a compramentry thing that explains how X differs from a neutral OS and hardware independent stand point in its own chapter, kinda how there's a chapter explaining how C++ differs from other languages and without duplicating contents covered in other Wikibooks then I may be willing to reconsider my stance on not having it at all.

A real dead tree book couldn't, can't and doesn't cover it all and books on Wikibooks are ment to be printed, so why should books here be any different?

I'm glad you don't revert all my work, to me that would be assuming bad faith, which I don't think you do. If there's changes I've made that you dislike, we can try to discuss them if you wish. I think we both agree we're both trying to make the book better in our own ways even when we don't see eye to eye. I think we're doing an ok job of trying not to step on each others toes and trying to be reasonable with each other when we disagree, so I don't think thats a problem. I'm just suggesting we try to work together rather then fight, like other people suggested too, by coming up with solutions we both can live with, rather then immediately drawing a line in the sand and throwing status quo back in each other's face as a means of ending discussion.

I'm not trying to delete all of your work or anyone elses work either, however I can see how it may seem that way to you, since you've contributed a lot to the book. I'm just trying to improve the book, like you are. I respect everyone's contributions, views and ideas. If there are things I'm doing which you don't understand why I'm doing, you only need to ask, and I'll try to explain why I'm doing it. I'm open to suggestions and feedback. I tend try to only do parts of my ideas I've fully worked out and then try to work from there once done, so I can see how what I do may be mistaken as being unproductive when its incompleat. If I don't end up start somewhere doing something, I tend to never get anything done, from too many compeating ideas. I hope this last bit makes sense to you, it is a bit of a paradox and inconsistent. --darklama 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV even an extension couldn't cover your own POV, you are willing to remove/avoid any independent platform or give a multitude of POVs, its like having a cube and you wish to display only one face, I say we should try to provide a view of all faces. As I said many times only content matters the structure is irrelevant in comparison as it's volatile and virtual.

"delete all of your work or anyone else work either", I know that you are only, humm, removing, moving the parts you disagree with, I on the other hand am willing to have all parts and it's basically in the book scope to, it is an orientation I can't and don't intend on forcing contributions only on the subjects I prefer, I think you also could go pass that restriction and accept more in place of less, the moves and reformatting can be left for later if you don't have a problem with it.

We at this time understand each others views and intentions and the conflicting points, I'm sorry I have added the tag on copyright violation without talking to you first, but I also knew that it was a conflicting point of view we have (and not only us), and it was of benefit to the community as a hole to get that clarified, I even knew that if I did ask you to make the changes you would probably do them, but this problem goes beyond us, an I gave previews examples and we both saw how even Admins (that should have a better grasp on this) have dealt with the problem, I'm sorry for the status quo part but it was one of the proposed solutions to face the problem.

Btw I don't know if this was a result of that weak solution but instance when you are refactoring pages (not against it, and it was on the book approved list), the contribution list is lost even more if the moves don't fallow a limited time frame, you would gain authorship if only the contribution "history" was recognized, even on a more serious discussion of copyright infringement the resolution would be very hard, since the history can't be searched, there are problems with the Wiki framework and there are problems with policies and even the interpretation of the law, I don't claim to have a better grasp of things but I refuse to agree with things as they are, and I am trying to clear them out, as I consider to have a vested interest on making wikibooks function but only inside a fixed set or rules not having from time to time to deal with opposing interpretation, this was the 3rd time I had to deal with this void and I should probably have quited by now, well this is my last try, sorry if I gave you a hard time but I think it's worth to battle for what I think is write, even if other disagree, dismiss the problems. Please don't see me as trying to give you troubles or as acting against you personally or even being a "dick". --Panic 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)