If I post correspondence on your page, please answer there. If you post here, I will first reply here and wait a few days for a closing reply from you. If you don't close it, I'll move the thread to your talk page.

If you are going to ask any question first take some time and take a look into
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way ... txs

If you are going to report a BUG please take the time to look at this Guide first
How to Report Bugs.

Archived messages...

C++ Programming old discussion moved to
Archive 2, Archive
The user blocks saga old post moved to
blocks

[edit] Working on it...

Essay on Decision making and Community consensus on Wikibooks - (active) addresses the interpretation of Whiteknight.

[edit] Cloak and daggers

[edit] C++ Programming

Why does C++ Programming have 3 different TOCs? It does not make sense. I heard that you wouldn't work with anyone else, instead trying to maintain authority over it. Arlen22 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You heard it wrong. See Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance#C++ Programming for the reasons... --Panic (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It has 2 TOCs the 3rd one is for editors (anyway I only maintain 2 the original and the editor's toc), and I didn't create any of them. I've always worked on the original you can still check on how the book looked before on the history of TOC1. --Panic (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like I heard exactly right. Arlen22 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you did hear it then it was not stated by myself. If so I would ask you to point me to my statement so I can clearify it for you or recant it. --Panic (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't say it. DarkLama said that was the feeling he got when trying to contribute. It is near the end of the discussion. Arlen22 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• removed a bit of the load from the page, can be found [1].

Yeah, it's kind of disappointing that there has to be so many books. (not that I am blaming you or anything, don't get me wrong.) Arlen22 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do have some blame, because I "forked" the work initially. That is another history but it is interesting since it was somewhat the reversal of positions of Darklama and I. Paddu (the topmost contributor and still active on the talk pages of the book at the time, he was not contributing content to it for some time then) was blocking some of my attempts to extend the book (I was mostly adding content not primarily engaged in a reformat attempt like Darklama). As I failed to come to a consensus with him and respected his power to block my actions (Darklama didn't, going so far as to using administrative tools to push his vision), I decided to fork the work. A fork only because I thought that deleting all the content I had added without opposition would be wrong, so it was duplicated. In any case the motivation was to continue adding content to the project, and I did... --Panic (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of this archived VfD? Arlen22 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. One more attempt to create trouble, even if initiated by Xania the idea for the vfd was advanced by another admin. (Xania was one of those opposing one of the series of blocks I had). IIRC they even got me blocked for a while a bit before that (great timing). Contributing to Wikibooks is not easy especially when administrators work in such a manner. All the participant on that VFD were administrators. There are several statement regarding me that are incorrect or twist my affirmations on the comments of SB_Johnny, Whiteknight and Darklama, this has been common on the way they work to spread misinformation (see the last and aborted VFD for another example).

You probably have now examined what has been occurring in more detail than any other administrator outside of the issue, even Swift that told me he would examine the facts failed to do as much. At least in that vfd Whiteknight did act correctly, but the vfd in itself was not very proper, as it was initiated based on another argument I was having with Whiteknight about the licenses on his talk page. An argument about the GFDL text requiring a clear statement of the content owners that they were releasing the content under the 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.", I contested that because many books did not bare such a licensing statement the GFDL could be pulled at any time, especially because all contributors to the system are mostly anonymous.

In any case thanks to my work on identifying each of the sources and having personally contacted most of the authors directly before using their content, having emails to prove it in my possession and listing the content owners on the book way before the vfd, that didn't go anywhere, but I call your attention to the vote of Darklama that until the end supported deletion. --Panic (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Did you see this one Wikibooks:Arbitration (consider the players) and that the process was aborted (even if no mention of the fact seems to be present there), the pages describing the arbitration have been heavily restructured, they don't even mentions why the closing admin is not the arbiter and the brouhaha (IIRC there was a vote on the general discussion area, were the active community objected to what they wanted to do) that lead to the quick abortion of the process (see the arbiter last words on the subject). withinfocus acted on WhiteKnights behalf on that one. --Panic (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not WhiteKnight that initiated it. it was User:Robert Horning. Arlen22 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the abortion of the process, both SB_Johnny and I agreed in having Robert Horning as arbiter, but the abortion process was performed by withinfocus in behalf of Whiteknights (this became obvious at that time, by statements made on Wikibooks pages). A new process was then started when SB_Johnny proposed another process moderated by (a bit clueless) Wikipedian (to what I agreed, since I was again blocked) and resulted on my final unblocking, not by addressing the initial Darklama's actions but by enabling me to resolve the mess created around James non issue and the placement of a statement of intentions and a request not to pursue anyone of those involved, with a validity for 6 moths (if I broke any I would be summarily blocked). --Panic (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The non issue created around James was the exaggeration that James was a newcomer to the book (IIRC James came to contribute to the book because I made some advertising requesting contributors) and that I had bitten him, because after he made one (among many others edits). I challenged the validity of the edit and asked him to correct/explain the edit in 3 days or I would revert it (not the exact wording but with that nature see here what was the precursor of the blocking process). --Panic (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: James had already been working on the book for some time, the misconception of labeling him as newcomer may have arouse because he always posted unsigned (and was pretty unaware of the social structure and issues going on). James was until very recently (after a bit more escalation of the issues) a very productive and pertinent contributor even if sporadic. I recognized long ago that he has an even better control on the subject than I, the instrumentalization of this Wikibookian against me was a real disservice to Wikibooks. (Note that the user never requested my block or requested administrative intervention.) --Panic (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to commend you for a few things:

1. Whenever anyone brought up issues about you, you always explained what your intentions were.
2. You have also cleared yourself in my mind, and hopefully all who read this, of the refusal to co-operate with others.

Arlen22 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you have put into the subject. I know this is a very convoluted and lengthy problem. I've always attempted to admit to any of my faults, and will always be available to clarify any issues. --Panic (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TOC 1

Hi, I have been tring to remove the transclusions from C++_Programming/TOC1. I have just noticed you added one, do you mind if I take it out? Thenub314 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We can see if the removal of the transclusions are beneficial by watching how editors work or readers comment. But if they are causing any problems to your work go ahead are remove it. They facilitates edits and synchronization and I had the intention of continuing working on that section. I do like them and don't see any real benefits on removing them (only increases the maintainability problems). --Panic (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case see Conventions adopted on that book and it's debate area for conventions proposals for that local manual of style and other practice or procedures adopted for that Wikibook. --Panic (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note-Template

1. re at: User_talk:Mjchael#Request --Mjchael (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
2. re at: User_talk:Mjchael#Request --Mjchael (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)