User talk:Minun

I noticed that StrategyWiki likes to hack others attempt to transwiki pages from Wikibooks and other wikis. When I attempted to move two different pages to my own wiki, StrategyWiki hacked my attempt (luckily, there still giving my wiki the credit for rescuing the page). And it appears they were doing the same to WikiKnowledge, the above topic, says it all, you TransWikied a page from WikiKnowledge, and please say where did it say the article needed TransWiki-ing Minun 13:30, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Er, what? There's no hacking going on. When we transwiki pages, it's because they aren't wanted on the original site. In the case of many articles from Wikibooks, we transwiki them because Wikibooks is trying to remove all their game walkthroughs (they don't feel they're appropriate there), and instead of losing the data completely, it's copied over here so that people can continue working on it. In the case of the fighting game moves guide, it was almost entirely Procyon's work (so he's entitled to do what he wants with it), and here was again a more appropriate place for it than Wikiknowledge. Regardless of that, all the contributions people make to places like Wikibooks are put under the GFDL license, which (in broad terms) means it can be copied and reproduced anywhere, as long as the list of contributors (i.e. the page history) is kept with it, and the license isn't changed without every author's consent. As I said before, there's no hacking going on here. --DrBob (Talk) 14:08, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes! I appreciate you resucing pages that need a new home, but im talking about the ones that have already been transwikied Minun 14:27, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Minun, I'm not going to try to reason with you since all attempts to reason with someone at WikiKnowledge have only been met with irrationality, and based and your ramblings above, I can only assume that you're no different. Your accusation of "hacking" makes absolutely no sense.  How exactly can anyone "hack" what you do on your own wiki site?  I believe you're only creating a commotion here out of some misguided loyalty to Gmcfoley, who by the way, has no rightful ethical claim to the Fighting Moves Guide, even if he's entitled to keep a depricated version of it on his site.  As a personal aside, it seems to me that WikiKnowledge should be renamed GmcfoleyStolenKnowledge since he's really the only one contributing anything substantial to his own site. (And yes Minun, you may constitute that as an attack and mention it on your site discussion page.) Procyon 14:41, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't really know much of what "hacking" means, but if "hacking" is the wrong word, lets just say that members of StrategyWiki is just transwiki-ing pages which have already been transwikied Minun 14:51, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
 * If you don't know what a word means, don't use it! As the content is freely licensed, anybody is entitled to copy it to their sites, including us. Sorry for being blunt. --DrBob (Talk) 15:03, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Minun, there are no limitations on how many times, and where, a page can be transwikied. If two sites feel that particular content is useful, than obviously, as long as the GFDL license is complied with, two sites can copy and provide that information. If it upsets you that StrategyWiki is incorporating the same information that you wish to, your only recourse is to make the material on your site shine and make people want to come to your site because your content is better. You can't simply be angry because now people have a choice between your site and another. That's exactly my problem with Gmcfoley and the Fighting Moves Guide. It bothers me tremendously that he insists on keeping the lists there. I can't coerse him to remove the content even though I feel that he ethically should. All I can do is what I'm doing and making our version of the Moves Lists MUCH BETTER. And I think I'm succeeding at that.

Now that Wikis are popping up in many places, I think it's going to be a case of evolve or die off. Pointless random wiki sites with no purpose will always be outshined by sites like StrategyWiki that have a definitive purpose and seek to be the best container of information about a particular subject that it can be. Sites like WikiKnowledge seem to have no point beyond one person's personal agenda. Procyon 15:23, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

X-COM: Apocalypse
There was no need for you to lay onto Garrett about the X-COM: Apocalypse guide, as all requirements of the GFDL (as far as I understand) were met when it was transwikied: the history was copied across. The link you added to Wikibooks would not have (by itself) upheld the GFDL's requirements, as it was to an almost empty page with no edit history. --DrBob (Talk) 11:09, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

History
About the GFDL, as long as it tells who the authors are, it doesn't need to tell the site. So the fact that all the edits on the Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire/Walkthrough are attributed to you satisfied the GFDL (check the history). Same with X-COM: Apocalypse. -- Prod 11:13, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for the Pokemon guides!
Hi Minun! I want to thank you very much for contributing your Pokemon guides to StrategyWiki. They are very much needed and will be appreciated by everyone. Now that you've taken the initiative to transwiki your Pokemon guides here, I will do my part to help continue the propogation of your work to this site. Please let us know if we can be of anymore assistance to you in the future. Take care! Procyon 12:06, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

GFDL
Usually the transwiki process (export/import) is supposed to cover the GFDL.

I'm reading from gnu.org:

''You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.''

I guess the section you are talking about is:

''# I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.''

''# J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.''

I is already done with author list. The export/import provides access to a transparent copy (meaning editable) for the current, and all previous versions. I think the GFDL is covered. -- Prod 13:55, 1 October 2006 (CDT)