text:
Taxation in the United Kingdom/Corporation tax/Residents and non-residents

As noted in Who pays corporation tax?, UK resident companies pay corporation tax on their worldwide profits, whereas, non-residents are only within the charge to corporation tax if they carry on a trade in the UK through a permanent establishment, and then, only on the profits attributable to that permanent establishment.

These means we need to consider the following:

 * How do we decide if a company is UK resident?
 * What is a permanent establishment?
 * How do we attribute proits to that permanent establishment?

Residency
A company is resident in the United Kingdom if:

 * it is incorporated in the UK ; or
 * it has its central management and control in the UK.

It is possible for a company to be both UK resident plus meet the residency requirements of another jurisdiction. Often there is a double tax convention between the UK and that other jurisdiction that has a residency clause. This clause typically provides that if a company is resident under the law of both contracting states, it shall be deemed to be resident only in the state where the company is effective managed. Generally the terms "effective management" and "central management and control" are synonymous. If there is no double tax convention, the company will continue to be taxed as a resident of both jurisdictions.

Permanent establishment
A company has a permanent establishment in a territory if, and only if :
 * it has a fixed place of business there through which the business of the company is wholly or partly carried on, or
 * an agent acting on behalf of the company has and habitually exercises there authority to do business on behalf of the company.

For this purpose a "fixed place of business" includes:
 * a place of management;
 * a branch;
 * an office;
 * a factory;
 * a workshop;
 * an installation or structure for the exploration of natural resources;
 * a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources;
 * a building site or construction or installation project.

A company is not regarded as having a permanent establishment in a territory by reason of the fact that it carries on business there through an agent of independent status acting in the ordinary course of his business. Also, a company is not regarded as having a permanent establishment in a territory by reason of the fact that:
 * a fixed place of business is maintained there for the purpose of carrying on activities for the company, or
 * an agent carries on activities there for and on behalf of the company,

if, in relation to the business of the company as a whole, the activities carried on are only of a preparatory or auxiliary character, which is taken to include:

 * the use of facilities for the purpose of storage, display or delivery of goods or merchandise belonging to the company;
 * the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the company for the purpose of storage, display or delivery;
 * the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the company for the purpose of processing by another person;
 * purchasing goods or merchandise, or collecting information, for the company.

Attributing profits to a permanent establishment
The profits attributable to a permanent establishment for the purposes of corporation tax are :
 * trading income arising directly or indirectly through or from the establishment,
 * income from property or rights used by, or held by or for, the establishment, and
 * chargeable gains as described below.

For tax purposes, the profits attributed to the permanent establishment are the profits it would have made if it were a distinct and separate enterprise, engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions, dealing wholly independently with the non-resident company. It is assumed for these purposes that the permanent establishment has the same credit rating as the non-resident company, and has such equity and loan capital as it could reasonably be expected to have if it were a distinct and separate enterprise. Tax deductions cannot exceed the amount of the costs that would have been incurred on this assumption, except that there are deductions for allowable expenses incurred for the purposes of the permanent establishment, including executive and general administrative expenses so incurred, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. "Allowable expenses" means expenses of a kind in respect of which a deduction would be allowed for corporation tax purposes if incurred by a company resident in the United Kingdom. The chargeable gains of a company not resident in the United Kingdom but carrying on a trade in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment there include chargeable gains accruing to the company on the disposal of :
 * assets situated in the United Kingdom and used in or for the purposes of the trade at or before the time the gain accrued, or
 * assets situated in the United Kingdom and used or held for the purposes of the permanent establishment at or before the time the gain accrued or acquired for use by or for the purposes of the permanent establishment.

For this rule to apply, the disposal has to be made at a time when the company is carrying on a trade in the UK through a permanent establishment there.

There are special rules for attributing profits to non-resident banks, brokers, financial intermediaries and insurers.

 * Preceding page: Who pays corporation tax?
 * Next page: The schedular system of corporation tax


text:
Template:Uim/Navigation

uim | Introduction | Installation | Setup | Usage | Configuration | Support | Manuals | Development License

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Uim/Navigation


text:
Uim/License

This wikibook is in the public domain. Any changes to its Wikibooks copy will be assumed to be released into the public domain.

title: Uim/License


text:
User:Everlong/Orphans

Talk pages with orphans listed
Chinese - Blended Learning in K-12 - LaTeX - Cryptography - Bartending - C++ Programming - StarCraft - Electronics - General Chemistry - Latin - XML: Managing Data Exchange - German - Introspector - Java Programming - A Wikimanual of Gardening - Anatomy

Transwiki: First Aid - A Wikimanual of Gardening - Beekeeping - Java Programming - Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter

Orphans with cleanup tags
JoArabize - Joystick Game - Force and Motion - Network address translation

To be transwikied
Monkey Madness Quest - Beowulf - Extermination Order (Mormonism)

How To Be A Real Estate Agent
Being a Real Estate Agent/The First Steps and Getting Your License/United States/What Is a Real Estate Agent?

Gimme Shelter! Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/After Getting Your License - Gimme Shelter! Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Glossary - Gimme Shelter! Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Introduction

Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Deeds - Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Getting Your License in New Hampshire - Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Glossary - Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Introduction - Learning How To Be A Real Estate Agent/Residential Properties

Video games
Animal Crossing: Wild World - Kirby Super Star - List of Mega Man attacks - Mario Kart 64 - Mario Adventure - Metroid Prime - Metroid Prime: Hunters - Paper Mario - NES & Famicom games - Project Entropia - Secret of Mana - Seiken Densetsu 3 - Super Monkey Ball - Star Fox: Assault - The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind/Andasreth Propylon Index - Radiata Stories - Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem

Orphaned backlinks
Radiation Oncology/Epidemiology - Radiation Oncology/Head & Neck - Radiation Oncology/Lung

Coding Cookbook
Coding Cookbook/Change Query Parameter - Coding Cookbook/Escape from encapsulation - Coding Cookbook/HTML Encode - Coding Cookbook/Inline If - Coding Cookbook/JavaScript Encode - Coding Cookbook/Pop-up Window - Coding Cookbook/Resizable Window - Coding Cookbook/SQL Encode - Coding Cookbook/Statusbar Ticker - Coding Cookbook/Tabbar - Coding Cookbook/URL Encode - Coding Cookbook/Validate Email Address

Orphaned transcluded pages
Radiation Oncology/Hodgkin/TOC - The Universe Made Simple/Front Image

Computer Programming
Computer programming/Control:1 - Computer programming/Control:1.1 - Computer programming/Control:1.2 - Computer programming/Control:1.3 - Computer programming/Control:10 - Computer programming/Control:11 - Computer programming/Control:12 - Computer programming/Control:2 - Computer programming/Control:3 - Computer programming/Control:5 - Computer programming/Control:6 - Computer programming/Control:7 - Computer programming/Control:8 - Computer programming/Control:9

Computer programming/Error handling/0 - Computer programming/Error handling/1 - Computer programming/Error handling/2 - Computer programming/Error handling/3 - Computer programming/Error handling/4 - Computer programming/Error handling/5 - Computer programming/Error handling/6

Computer programming/Mathematical calculations/0 - Computer programming/Variables/0

Japanese
Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Parts - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Parts

Japanese/Grammar Lessons/Introduction/Navbar - Japanese/Grammar Lessons/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ii tenki desu ne/Expressing understanding using ne/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ii tenki desu ne/I-adjectives/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ii tenki desu ne/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ii tenki desu ne/Special kana rules/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ii tenki desu ne/Talking about the weather/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Formal salutations/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Formality/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Noun predicates/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Pronunciation/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ogenki desu ka/Gojuuon and hiragana/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ogenki desu ka/Na-adjectives/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ogenki desu ka/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ogenki desu ka/Questions using ka/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ogenki desu ka/Talking about how you are doing/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Ogenki desu ka/Yes and no/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Affirmative and negative forms/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Saying how much you understand/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Using masu/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Verb stems/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Wakarimasu yo/Verbs/Navbar - Japanese/Lessons/Navbar

title: User:Everlong/Orphans


text:
Talk:The Ten Commandments/Exodus 20:1-17

Lack of annotation
This page currently looks like a verbatim copy from the Bible (I haven't verified it). It needs to be annotated or deleted as it breaks WB:WIW. --Swift 12:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


text:
User:Herbythyme/temp

I am an Admin - if you want help I'll do want I can, if you are a vandal you will may well be blocked without warning. I also tend to delete things quite quickly, if you disagree with me tell me - I will listen to you and try and reach a solution. As an Admin I take full responsibility for my actions.

I have an interest in three other accounts on this Wiki. User:Herbys bot is my bot account for cleanup and maintainance task (ask me if you have a job to do). I am part of User:The Staff account. There is also another one that merely redirects here relating to a previous Wikipedia account.

end??

some of the ideas and styles here have been shamelessly and gratefully stolen from various others - thanks -HT

title: User:Herbythyme/temp


text:
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy/Emotion Regulation Skills/Reducing vulnerability to “emotion mind”

To reduce vulnerability to negative emotions remember the acronym:

PLEASE Mastery

PL stands for physical illness. When you are healthy and strong you're less likely to be an emotion mind.

E stands for eating. Eat a well-balanced diet with plenty of water.

A stands for abstain from alcohol and drugs. alcohol and drugs are mood destabilizing.

S stands for sleep. Give yourself plenty of time to sleep. Everything goes better when you're rested.

E stands for exercise. Worked up to 20 minutes of vigorous exercise a day.

Master stands for mastery. Mastery is doing something that make you feel competent and in control.


text:
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy/Emotion Regulation Skills/Understanding the function of emotions/Self-validating feelings

Jane’s self-validating feelings

Jane (not a real person) is a teenager living with her parents, who does not do well with stress. She is doing the best she can, but when she is put under pressure she gets nervous. She is fine most of the time unless there is a deadline of some kind. With any sort of time limit, she feels overwhelmed, anxious, and confused. When there is time pressure, Jane starts to ruminate; she becomes forgetful, irritable with others, and tends to isolate. Jane’s reaction to stress causes problems in school, work and home.

Jane’s family assumes that she is she stable person she appears to be. They do not understand that she can get so anxious and upset with pressure. In fact, Jane works hard to stay in control and avoid pressure. Sometimes, her family puts what they this is normal pressure on her to do something and Jane “freaks out” as she angrily pushes people away. take her unstable mood into consideration, sometimes they expect more out of her than she can give at the time. She is expected to do what her family asks despite her problem with anxiety – how she feels or what she thinks. Jane’s private experiences (feelings, thoughts, moods, fears) are not appreciated.

Her family believes the problem is her motivation. They believe if she would try harder she could do what they expect of her. “You could do it if you wanted to.” Her family is emotionally invalidating because they do not consider her personal experience or appreciate her emotional and mental experience. Jane can not consistently live up to their expectations and thinks she has disappointed “everyone.” Instead of feeling proud of what she has done, she feels guilt and shame for not pleasing her family and her occasional nervous breakdown.

One way for Jane to have her feelings taken seriously is to increase the intensity of her expressed emotions. “I can’t do it!” she screams. As her behavior becomes more frantic and desperate (mood-dependent), the intensity of her emotional expressions increase, she finally gets her family’s attention and sympathy. Unfortunately, when she is so out of control, she is not able to be really persuasive and get them to understand. She is expressive but not logical. Rather, when expressing such intense emotion, others perceive her as being “manipulative” (by which most people mean that she is using emotion to get them to do something) and they resent feeling controlled by her.

When she has calmed down and has a good day, Jane demonstrates normal behavior. She does what her family says she “should” do. Then her family believes that she really could do what they expected her to do all along. “See you can do it. We knew you could do it if you tried.” They believe her behavior depends on her motivation. So she feels guilt and shame (instead of pride of accomplishment) because she “should” have been behaving like this all along. Because she demonstrated normal behavior, the high expectations kick in again and the all-or-nothing thinking. She is criticized for not living up to their expectations. Jane again feels misunderstood and invalidated.

Jane lives with the shame of not being good enough to live up to her parent’s expectations. Her feelings of depression and sadness naturally follow from her thoughts. Her feelings are self-validating because she feels as she believes. She has internalized the messages she has gotten from the invalidating environment and has based her interpretation of her behavior on her family’s assessment. She feels sad because she believes she’s not good enough and she believes she’s not good enough because she has repeatedly disappointed her family. The function of her depressed feelings is self-validating: she thinks about herself the way that she feels about herself and feels about herself the way she thinks about herself. Her feelings determine her thoughts and vice versa.


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Camping/Ten edible wild plants

We present some of the more common edible plants here. For more options see the Edible Wild Plants honor in the Nature chapter of this book. Incidentally, once you have met this requirement, you will be well on your way to earning the Edible Wild Plants Honor.


text:
User talk:Bmenn~enwikibooks

Late but ..
Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 15:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also
is Self-validating feelings intended to be a sub page of a book? If so it should be moved to be a subpage of that book. If it is intended as a stand alone book that is different - regards -- Herby talk thyme 15:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * please bear in mind with this that Wikibooks does not include works of fiction (you do refer to it as a "story"?). Let me know if I can help -- Herby  talk thyme 15:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I've moved the page to where I think it should be but do let me know if I am wrong. Equally I've fixed the formatting on another page you did - take a look and see what I did - it may help you in the future.  Let me know if I can help - regards -- Herby  talk thyme 16:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, self validating feelings is a sub page of the function of emotions and is an illustrative story. Also, I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond to you. Thank you for fixing the page I will check it out.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bmenn~enwikibooks


text:
Abnormal Sexual Psychology/Voyeurism

The DSM-IV has a rather broad definition of voyeurism that it recognizes as clinical in nature.

title: Abnormal Sexual Psychology/Voyeurism


text:
Cookbook:Pancakes (North American)

| Flatbread

North American pancakes are a type of pancake prepared from a batter that is baked on a hot griddle or frying pan. They exist in several variations in many different local cuisines.

Ingredients

 * 120 g (½ cup or 4 oz) all-purpose flour (white, whole grain or 1:1 mix of white and whole grain)
 * 1 ½ tsp baking powder
 * 1 pinch salt
 * 250 ml (1 cup or 8 fl oz) milk (substitute buttermilk or 1:1 mix of milk and buttermilk)
 * 1 egg, separated
 * 1 tbsp white sugar (optional; this will add a sweetness to your pancakes and is recommended if you are not using any sauces, syrups or ingredient such as bananas or blueberries that will add natural sugars to the mix)

Procedure

 * 1) In a large bowl, mix dry ingredients together until well-blended.
 * 2) Add milk and mix well until smooth.
 * 3) Separate the egg, placing the whites in a medium bowl and the yolks in the batter. Mix batter well.
 * 4) Whip whites until stiff and then fold into batter gently (skip this step for heavier pancakes or if 1 cup buttermilk is substituted for milk).
 * 5) Pour ladles of the mixture into a non-stick pan, one at a time.
 * 6) Cook until the edges are dry and bubbles appear on surface. Flip, then cook until golden.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Serve with butter, maple syrup, fruit, chocolate spread, melted chocolate, jam, or cheese.
 * Many variations of this recipe use a whole beaten egg instead of the yolk and whipped whites. In these variations, all wet ingredients are mixed together with the dry ingredients to make the batter before moving on to the cooking.
 * Use buttermilk or yogurt instead of milk, or wholegrain flours instead of white. This will change the consistency of the final product—whole grain flours generally lead to a denser heavier pancake, so try mixing white and wheat in various proportions as suggested above to get the feel you want.
 * Try adding sliced fruit such as banana and apple, or broken crispy bacon to the batter after pouring into the skillet and before flipping.

fr:Cuisine:Pancake ספר מתכונים/פנקייק Libro di cucina/Ricette/Pancake Kookboek/Pannenkoeken

title: Cookbook:Pancakes (North American)


text:
Cookbook talk:Pancakes (North American)

This is not a recipe
Something that starts "2 cups original Bisquick mix" is not a recipe, it's directions. You can't start a recipe on pancakes with "Open a box of pancake mix."
 * Actually, it is a recipe. It's a simple one from Bisquick.  Bisquick already premixed some of the ingredients; that's all. Marcus2 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is an "Original Bisquick mix"? I agree with the first poster that the recipe should have real ingredients, not some brand-specific products which might not even be available outside a given area. --163.1.42.166 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree
I agree. if someone doesn't want to go to the bother of making pancakes yourself, and buys a mix, then the directions are on the box, therefore i think the section is obsolete. Please comment, and if noone comments ill delete it. Mcmillan0520 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC) delete it my dear its useless

12 - 14 pancakes my foot.
It's looking like I'm going to have 4 pancakes from this mix so far. Maybe 6 if I'm lucky. Am I the only one?

12 - 14 pancakes depends on your ingredients.
Some flours give you denser taller pancakes (oat flour) while others (white flour) will give flatter pancake. I used the recipe doubled with oat flour and ended up with ca. 15. Egg size will also change the yield somewhat.

12-14 pancakes if you make them really small
Using white and wheat flour, when I make the pancakes about six inches in diameter I have enough batter for at least six whole pancakes, and they come out pretty thick. I'm sure some people must make them smaller. If you're getting less than six pancakes from the current recipe you must be going full Uncle Buck on them.

Thanks for the tip Lorraine Lorreta (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Pancakes (North American)


text:
Talk:Dialectical Behavioral Therapy/Emotion Regulation Skills/Understanding the function of emotions/Self-validating feelings

This story illustrates principles from that the self-validating section of the function of emotions. Should I call it an example?

This is a sub-page of the function of emotion.

 * If it is a story and not an example used in a book then it is not permitted on Wikibooks I'm afraid (I am not sure it would be acceptable even then - Wikibooks are textbooks". If it is a subpage then it must be named according to policy (link on your talk page) -- Herby  talk thyme 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...c5/2. Nf3/2...d6/3. d4/3...cxd4/4. Nxd4/4...Nf6/5. Nc3/5...a6/6. Bg5/6...e6/7. f4/7...b5

=Polugaevsky Variation=

Moves : 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 b5

White has several possible choices. Common moves are :

/8. e5/ (main line)

/8. Qf3/

/8. a3/

Theory table
.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 b5


text:
User talk:Kpuchon

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kpuchon


text:
User talk:76.175.21.1

I think that the assertion that SQL is "a method for specifying the means of requesting data..." is convoluted and incorrect. SQL isn't a method: it's a language. SQL also doesn't specify the means, or how to accomplish the task Rather, it specifies the ends: the desired or expected result of the operation. I added a more descriptive definition of SQL as a declarative language to further clarify this point.

I also removed the paragraph that incorrectly stated that SQL is non-programmable. Of course SQL is programmable, since it is after all a database programming language. I think the original author may have confused this term with non-procedural, which has quite a different meaning. In any case, I added a reference to the characteristics of procedural database languages to further clarify how the contrast between SQL as a declarative language. Further expansion of this topic could be useful to show the steps to perform a query using dBase/xBase code vs. SQL.

I also think the term metadata shouldn't be used without a definition or reference to its meaning, since it isn't a term that readers should be expected to know.

 * I'm sure very relevant and important but this should be placed on the talk page of the article concerned - thanks -- Herby talk thyme 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

-- Herby talk thyme 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:76.175.21.1


text:
Windows Movie Maker/Finishing your movie

Why save it like this?
The normal save you use (on the file menu) saves your work in Windows Movie Maker format, which cannot be uploaded to the internet, played in media players or burned to discs. So you must click on SAVE TO MY COMPUTER to save it in one of the 'proper' formats, such as WMV (Windows Media Video).

Saving It

 * 1) If the movie tasks are not displayed (at the far left of the screen) then click on the TASKS tab below HELP.
 * 2) Under FINISH MOVIE, click on SAVE TO MY COMPUTER.
 * 3) Follow the instructions in the wizard. When selecting your format, take these things into consideration: if you transferred your video to your computer DV-AVI or wish to burn the finished video to DVD, then choose DV-AVI. If you captured your video and save it in DV-AVI the quality will be just as it was before you started - uncompressed. Otherwise, just choose RECOMMENDED.

Note
If your video size exceeds your computer's available RAM, it will not save and the time estimate will be ridiculously large. Eventually, the computer will give up and display a message about Virtual Memory being too low. An example of one of movie maker's many shortcomings.


text:
User talk:63.225.29.149

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikibooks. Wikibooks is intended to be read without the need for external reference and requires content rather than external links particularly those which are for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikibooks. Thank you.--Az1568(Talk) 19:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:63.225.29.149


text: User:Herraotic/Sandbox Three

title: User:Herraotic/Sandbox Three


text:
Bartending/Cocktails/Blue Hawaiian

Ingredients

 * 3/4 oz. Rum
 * 3/4 oz. Vodka
 * 1/2 oz. Blue Curaçao
 * 3-4 oz. Pineapple Juice
 * 1 oz. Sweet & Sour
 * Ice

Glass

 * Collins
 * Small Hurricane

On the Rocks
Combine ingredients in a shaker with ice. Mix well and strain into a collins or small hurricane glass filled with crushed ice.

Blended
Combine with a scoop of ice in an electric mixer. Mix well (15 - 20 sec). Pour into collins or small hurricane glass.

Recipe from CoolCocktail
A slight variation found online :

Ingredients:
 * 1 ounce Light rum
 * 2 ounces Pineapple juice
 * 1 ounce Blue curacao
 * 1 ounce Cream of coconut
 * 1 slice Pineapple
 * 1 Cherry

Method:

Blend light rum, blue curacao, pineapple juice, and cream of coconut with one cup ice in an electric blender at high speed. Pour contents into a highball glass. Decorate with the slice of pineapple and a cherry.

Blue Hawaiian

title: Bartending/Cocktails/Blue Hawaiian


text:
Template:EWP

/Transcluded Modules Usage:

title: Template:EWP


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Cattail

|


text:
User:Willscrlt/monobook.js

// User:Lupin/popups.js

mw.loader.load(            'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s');

title: User:Willscrlt/monobook.js


text:
Wikibooks talk:Ownership

Freedoms, editorial control and copyright ownership
The original text did have all this factors included as to make the distinction on what ownership meant in the specific contexts, recently people have focused more on establishing that no one has editorial control on works (I think that it is consensual and already expressed on other policies texts, probably not as emphatically as some would wish). The proposal draft was and is seen as necessary to clarify contributing Wikibookians about copyright issues, our new Terms of Use (July 2009) makes a real improvement on what was originally available at the time the proposal was first drafted, but it is still specific on establishing users and Wikimedia, responsibilities, requirements and freedoms, not in establishing or clarifying authorship/copyright rights, attributions, requirements and limitations. Some of these are very specific to the Wikibooks project and ultimately will require our community approval. --Panic (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I very much liked Darklama's previous version. I would like to suggest we revert back to this version and move forward from there. Thenub314 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I have proposed to Darklama to include that statements in the Be Bold that already deals with the problem of editorial control (if you have the time read the discussion that lead to the adoption of the Be Bold text). I do not, and don't know of anyone today that opposing the views that Darklama condensed on that edit, I even don't object to have it included on this draft, but the point of the text is about copyright ownership not editorial control. See this talk page history for more information. --Panic (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I have read through the history diff by diff. My conclusion is that, of the people that have taken part in the talk page you are the unique person claiming that this page is about copyright.

 * Granted, there was much discussion of copyright in the history in response to points you have raised. But everyone else seemed to be clear that this was not what the page was about.

 * But it was pointed out many times by Whiteknight, , , . By SB_Johnny , and Darklama . The other participants Robert Horning and Jguk never explicitly state one way or another what the page should be about.

 * Overall, I agree with the sentiments above that this page has nothing to do with copyright. And seeing that others feel the same I am going to be bold and go back to DL's version. Thenub314 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Which are very specific to Wikibooks and why are they specific to Wikibooks? --dark lama  00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Our specific requirements of attribution (not the same as Wikipedia), definition of author, the author page, the benefits of having stated licensing of the works. I know your opinion, by our previous discussions that you see little point on this issues but I ask you to respect mine and others that also have stated opposition to your sole satisfaction with the submit statement, to what we previously discussed and pointed limitation. IIRC the last issue on that front was on the volatility of the statement and the lack of discussion regarding it's changes. Note that I'm not promoting a discussion on these subjects now only attempting to remind you of past discussions about the subject of copyright in general, that you seem to have forgotten.
 * The information present here is not irrelevant and is not duplicated elsewhere, it can be easily extended to clarify our dual licensing scheme that to most users should be confusing and enable a future discussion regarding relicensing of works beyond the Wikibooks licenses among other issues relevant only to copyright owners. --Panic (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The definition of an author is no different here than anywhere else. While there are author pages the need for them is even less now than before. People are no longer obligated to refer to the authors to give credit when reusing book material and can instead just link back. I'm not sure what the current status is on stating licensing of works, I have noticed some Licensing pages have been deleted over time. I see even less point on these issues now than I did back than because of CC-BY-SA and a link back being sufficient attribution. I believe there isn't a need to clarify the licensing scheme because people don't need to use the GFDL license at all unless they want to.
 * I believe it would be a good idea to find out from Whiteknight what his intentions were and if necessary rename this page to "Wikibooks:Copyright_ownership" to avoid continued ambiguity. --dark lama  01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there isn't any need to ask Whiteknight, unless you are still confused on his intentions for this proposal. He has stated it many times including his last comments from 2007. --dark lama  01:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes and no. Due to the nomenclature used by the software the word author has been extremely abused, we had already discussed this issues, but I'm game to rehash the subject again if you fell it is important at this time. An editor is not an author for instance the C++ Programming book has (according to stats.wikimedia.org)166 registered authors.
 * I fact it has 166 editors, this is a non issue on Wikipedia (since there is no ownership over each encyclopedic article is not possible, only the over the aggregation). As I often stated Wikibooks is completely different in this respect, the closest project to us on copyrights procedure and overall structure is Wikisource. In any case you already know all these arguments I do fail to realize your purpose in failing to acknowledge already established positions.
 * The current status on stating the licensing of the works was achieved in a discussion that we had on Rob's talk page IIRC, it was determined that even if it was beneficial to clearly state the licensing on each individual work and the people that specifically own rights over them (as to permit among other things future license changes). That there was not a consensus on the best implementation, required verifiability of identity and that ownership must be claimed by contributors (not attributed, attributions are only necessary if using other works, per the licenses). The community also discussed the particular problem regarding print versions and in general the generation of stand alone copies of the works, as requiring the inclusion of the GFDL, at the time the only license (one of the particular issues we, me and you, clashed on). Today it is debatable if only the simple acknowledgment of CC-BY-SA suffices, this is the specific reason why in the works I participate as an author I clearly state adhesion only to the CC-BY-SA license (the GFDL will only be valid on the aggregation, under the submit statement concept).
 * I have a good memory of the past events, this specific draft was created in response to the claims being attributed to me about editorial control and the confusion regarding the point I was making about copyright ownership, Whiteknight created this page during one of the times I was blocked, discussion that lead directly to the 27 February 2007 RfD of the C++ book.
 * In any case I don't think that discussion of this draft is particular important and going anywhere at this moment, as we are only restating previously known positions, most of the subject is not consensual and now sadly the consensual part has been removed under my objections. I will finish this discussion with a post stating my objections to the changes and basis for them.
 * I'm certainly more interested on your view of the fair use of images and how you came to that position on the request for permission and in having that request addressed...
 * PS:Of note that the phrase "I believe there isn't a need to clarify the licensing scheme because people don't need to use the GFDL license at all unless they want to." doesn't have any value, it contradicts itself, it is equal to the statement "I believe that there is a need to clarify the licensing scheme if people want to use the GFDL license, even if people don't need to.", making it a failed argument. --Panic (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I will just chime in and say that I have to agree with Darklama's comment on his talk page that Terms of Use and Copyrights cover copyrights and licensing. I've always thought of this page in the behavioral sense of owning books, though I admit I hadn't given it a good read. However, I like what I've seen so far in terms of changes made to bring it to the current state. – Adrignola talk 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement of objection
I'm hereby making a statement of objection against recent changes to the draft, done under objection by myself above in 1 Dec 2010, as a clear bypassing of the normal process to archive consensus and a clear disregard and nullification of the discussion attempt that was taking place. My objection is based on the intrinsic change to the draft text, that was focused in copyright issues to the issue of editorial control, this draft had a significant historical importance since it reflected a difficult process to get consensus in a subject that is extremely controversial, these changes put all references to the draft out of context (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikibooks:Ownership) and disregard past Wikibookians work on it. Of note that I don't object to the statement about the editorial control but what started as a clarification was now made into the sole and primary content. The draft I support is the one from the edit by Adrignola, 9 August 2010 with the necessary updates (to reflect the CC-SA licenses ), reflected in the edit by Panic2k4, 1 December 2010 (any other similar update would be valid). --Panic (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Well I would like to address the objections raised as best I can. I was not of the opinion I was bypassing of the normal process.  I had read the page history as you suggested, and came to the conclusion that myself, Darklama, and the editors I linked above (Whiteknight, SB_Johnny) felt this was a page about editorial control.  The only editor that seemed to be advocating for this to be about copyright that I saw in the history was you.

 * Given that the latest version began "This text is about copyright ownership, licensing, responsibility and requirements, not about editorial control." I felt this version of the text missed represented the consensus. My intention was to go back to something a few of us agreed upon and imporve it from there.  Overall I don't feel there has been any real shift in the focus of the text.  No work has been thrown away, this text is largly based on what had been there before.  It is just that I had a new interest in revisiting this proposed policy and see if it is possible to shape it into a full fledged policy.

 * From reading of the talk page history the consensus seemed to be that copyright concerns deserve their own page, and they were given their own page ([WB:Copyrights]]). Is their an issue that the terms of use and copyrights pages fail to cover? What do you think is missing from the current set of policies that need further explanation?that you feel should be made clear here? Thenub314 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The revision changes I objected above regards this reposition you made. I have no particular interest beyond establishing consensus in the a community interpretation of the copyright law and licenses that affect us here and our creations outside of the project. There are extremely divergent views on these subjects of core importance, in any case I wasn't the creator of this draft, even if I and others did participate in writing it my motivation was to get those points established and visible to other contributors. My feelings is due to the work/time and discussions done on that regard to bring it to that state that will be as good as lost.
 * I note again the sequence of actions and not only on this page. In your position after seeing that I already had contacted the Wikibookian about my position and objection to the change explaining why, I would have participated with my opinion on the ongoing discussion until I had a felling for the issue.
 * I wouldn't have performed a reversal but considering that I would, I would have been impartial and reverted both changes, but I wouldn't execute a reversal against one of the persons having a dispute, especially considering that the two persons already had a checkered past in dealing exactly with this subject matter. --Panic (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Your feedback is very welcome, and something I will think about. Sometimes I make mistakes, and it could be that decision was one of them.  But where do we go from here? Thenub314 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Just reminding you that actions do accumulate and resonate, when using the written word perceptions is everything and memory is long. At this point we are mostly finished on this subject since by your own fulminating action you have decided against my position, in fact as I like to say, you ignored my right to block, and acted on a majority decision that you support, we can even say that you did exactly what the draft text attempts to prevent, you exerted unilateral editorial control over the text, that is the only result of an edit reversal... --Panic (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * These are very strong words (I had to look up fulminating, and… wow, that is a strong description of my actions). I really don't intend to decide against your position.  I simply felt the version you put forward did not reflect the consensus of the other editors on the page.  I have never held consensus needed to be unanimous.  So concepts like a "right to block" simply never entered my mind.  I have been on the wrong side of consensus many times and never had (nor wanted) to block a community decision by my disagreement with it.  Over all I don't believe a right to block exists.  The key point of it to me is that we continue to try to work together and make sure your concerns are addressed in a manner agreeable to everyone.  Which is really what the questions above are really trying to get to the heart of.

 * This ultimately is a public forum and the perception of ones actions is of extreme importance (I have learned that in a hard way). Even if I have came to know how you roll and am extremely appreciative of your capacity to argument a point, especially when we don't see eye-to-eye, as it make me reexamine my positions and actions. Ultimately this is also a political game, even if I believe in your good intentions I must put myself in your position as to consider your motivations and actions so to provide a valid, satisfying and useful response.
 * On the right to block, a value that I think is extreme importance for the safeguard of minority views and the community well being. It is covered and supported on the Decision making process step 6, with a reenforcement or prioritization of the necessity to repeat the process if a valid objection is not lifted. I don't defend that consensus is unanimity (all in agreement), it is a state of non stated opposition. --Panic (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok, I suppose I misunderstood what you meant by "right to block", which is not quite the phrase I might have used to describe step 6. IIRC there was some feeling that the particular processes was not the only accepted one for determining consensus, which is why the wording was changed slightly to allow for the fact that other methods are accepted and frequently employed and I was not following it particularly here.  I take your point about politics.  I can understand the value of putting yourself in my position and considering my motivations.
 * I suppose my view of consensus involves stating opposition when opposition exists. I think now I understand some of the discussion about reconfiguring a bit better, and perhaps some of our previous disagreements stem from the different ways we think of consensus.  Thenub314 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The possibility that the page was once used in a different way is a valid concern that should be looked into. Following the links you suggested (excluding some clearly unnecessary redirects, etc.) This is my opinion of now people were using this page in discussions.

 * User talk:DavidCary - DavidCary links in discussion of editorial control.
 * User talk:Panic2k4 - Panic links about planned essay on Copyright.
 * User talk:Remi0o - Panic links, used in terms of explain his view on the differences between author/contributor over in relation to C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors
 * User:Whiteknight/Behavior Summary - Links from an a short essay about behavior and editorial control.
 * User talk:Robert Horning - Linked in a request Roberts opinion about the page.
 * Reading room/Archives/2006/December - Linked to say WB:DM has derived some sections from this page. Doesn't seem to be discussing any copyright issues, consistent with views he expressed in this talk page.
 * Reading room/General - Link by thenub314 soliciting input to this page.
 * Talk:C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors - Link by thenub314 explaining how he became aware of the corresponding book page.
 * Reading room/Archives/2008/January - Link by Mike.lifeguard about editorial control. (But he does mention GFDL, so maybe this is questionable)
 * Requests for deletion/Physics Handbook - Link by thenub314 about editorial control.
 * Reading room/Bulletin Board/2006 - page creation announcement "in response to recent events". At the time of posting the page only discussed editorial controls and not copyright.
 * User talk:Darklama A discussion between Panic and Darklama about recent edits.
 * Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2008/November - Linked by Panic in a discussion about copyright infringment.
 * Reading room/Archives/2009/April - Lined by Panic in a discussion about copyright infringment (started by thenub314.)
 * User talk:Arlen22- Linked to by Panic in order to explain removing Arlen22 from the author list of C++ Programming
 * Talk:Marijuana Cultivation - Linked to by Adrignola in comparison to WP policy (which is not about copyrights) but copyrights were part of the issue, so the intention of this link could be seen as ambiguous.
 * Reading room/Archives/2009/December - Linked to by Panic in a discussion about using an Authors real name.
 * User talk:QuiteUnusual/Archive 2 - Linked by Panic in a discussion of copyright.
 * Cookbook talk:Table of Contents/Archive 7 - Linked by WebAware in the sense of editorial control.
 * Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2007/April - linked to a few times by Panic in a discussion about an edit conflict over C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors.
 * Reading room/Archives/2007/April - Linked by Panic in a discussion of authors and attribution.

 * Overall my conclusion is that, excluding links by you directly people were generally using this page in discussions of editorial control. Thenub314 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * That conclusion seems partial :). Why should the use I gave the page have less importance? The important here is not the originator but the receptor.
 * Anyway I already expressed my views about the draft and if more people agree with the intended future use for it so be it, I will remove my objection. --Panic (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * It wasn't my intention to make your contributions seem less important. The only point is that your here making your point of view clear.  And you feel the point of the page was not about editorial control, you didn't object to editorial control being part of the page, but the core focus of the page seemed to be about copyright and licensing concerns.
 * I suppose I wanted to make the point, was that copyright concerns were not how the page is being used in discussions, and that people will probably not get confused by context if we shift the meaning of the text now. (Not that I really think we have but maybe I am biased.) Since your here to witness the sift, I am sure you'd use the page appropriately in discussions. Thenub314 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Authors
One thing, that perhaps could be made clearer is the issue of Authorship. I don't think it would be very appropriate for me to add anything about it at the moment, given that I am in a disagreement with Panic about the appropriateness of adding myself as an author of C++ Programming. But I do feel that the history here leaves something to be discussed. For example there was some initial conflict about who could be listed in the page:, , , this was perhaps unusual because the names being added were not by the people adding them (with the exception of Darklama who now choses not to include his name on the book). Later Arlen22 attempted to add his name to the page (it was his first edit to the book, but was followed by other edits) and it was removed. And later, after reading about the initial edit conflict in the history of this page I decided to add my name to the list. (In case anyone is curious yes I really did contribute a couple years ago). And this was followed by a long discussion about what it means to be "an author", and Panic felt my contributions were not extensive enough, I felt differently. But I self reverted to return things to the status quo for the time being.

 * I have also done the same verification in other works that I'm not listed as author, or even contribute too. Of importance to note is the wording of the list, some clearly list contributors or contributions (or derivations) in authors/license pages. I have also removed people from those lists if they had not made any contribution to the works and in performed similar verifications/corrections in works that clearly list authors, IIRC never based on "ratio" or quality of contributions. The only requirement in those types of lists is that the persons adds or removes itself from these last. --Panic (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that the terms author/editor/contributor/etc. should be treated as synonyms in the wikibooks context, and that anyone who makes a "significant edit" (something slightly more then adding a should be considered an author on equal footing with anyone else who contributed to the book.

Panic, if I understand correctly, feels there is and should be a distinction between these terms. Further, that an author has both special rights (and liabilities?) in terms of relicensing the work. (I could misunderstand, but I believe this is the whole book, as he can always relicense his own contributions. He will explain better I am sure.)

 * My view is not specific about labels, nor treatment, only a statement that they in fact reflect different relations between the volunteer and the content he/she provides. The exact definitions of authorship (or copyright holder, that may not be the same) is hard to establish due to the various laws (regional and international) that it would have to cover, but in the previous version of the text we already had made much clearer to those interested in the subject (mostly contributors, the term of use is in general directed to reuse/distribution and the Wikimedia requirements, all very distinct subjects). I don't particularly defend "author" beyond what constitutes authorship in a legal setting, I see that as extremely important for works to be "real" outside of the Wikibook project, in fact I see that as something that would get us more valuable contributions and more volume. It would also address the ad-hoc way the situation has been always treated, I was by no means the first one to point to this issue or use an author/license page. --Panic (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to make very clear that I am making no accusations of right or wrong. There is simply different points of view about the words should mean here at wikibooks. It might be interesting to glance at our more detailed discussion at Talk:C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors.

 * The point is why should they have another meaning in the first place? And that links to the need to educate. The use of the word author on the Wikimedia software is an historical artifact (and I already explained why). I haven't verified but I'm certain that those that contributed content to Wikisource are strangely "authors" of those contributions. --Panic (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel we should either explain the difference between these terms are (Roughly how much of a contribution must be made before one becomes an author of a book? What rights do you give up by not listing yourself as the author? What liabilities do you expose yourself to if you do list yourself as an author? etc.)

Or if we decide there is no difference, we should explicitly make that clear in the text as well. Since it is a matter that can lead to some confusion. Thenub314 (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The removed distinctions, and other considerations still in need to be created are relevant in regards to the legal protection of the project, the works and those contributors of intellectual propriety that so require.  --Panic (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to avoid mixing issues. How about Authorship for proposing what the policy should be on authors? --dark lama  18:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * No objection here, but I don't think we need, or should, build it to be a policy, at best a guideline if that (or as an unstable version of Copyrights) . The issue is that we will be attempting to establishing a common ground on what are already defined legal matters (even if some things are open to interpretation as never legally tested) we will also be making terms or nomenclature clearer to the community. These are things that would have been best done by Wikimedia itself but for past discussion with people in the know there isn't even consensus on the subject there, and some issues are specific to Wikibooks.  --Panic (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the rule obsolete? Should it be corrected?
The rule that an author cannot refuse a modification of his or her book contradicts the usual practice on Wikibooks. Completed books usually have one or a few more or less identified authors. It is natural. There has to be a strong will for a book to be completed. That Wikibooks have authors does not prevent them from working cooperatively, between authors, and between authors and readers. See [1] (in french). This is why I think the rule you mentioned is obsolete, except in the rare cases when a book has not a clearly defined author, or list of coauthors. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks are not owned. This is how Wikibooks works; it is and has been (afaik; certainly for the nine-plus years I've been here) standard practice.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My practice in the english-speaking Wikibooks community is too reduced, so I cannot say. "Own" is ambiguous. Of course, wikibooks are given freely. But in the french-speaking Wikibooks community we respect authors and authorship. This means that an author, when there is one, can refuse unwanted modifications. Do you think this is a bad rule ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will modify this page in a way which seems to me the best for the future of Wikibooks. This is not a french invasion. If the english-speaking Wikibooks community does not like the french way, they are of course free to modify my modifications, or to suppress them. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this page could be rephrased a little to make things clearer (and of course, like so much stuff on en.wb, it's never been made "official"). Ownership seems to be to be fundamentally contrary to the concept of en.wb.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What is not true? Could you be more precise ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The present rule dissuade most authors in the world from writing on Wikibooks. Why dissuade them ? There are many ways to work cooperatively. Why do you want to forbid our way ? If I can not refuse unwanted modifications on my books - I signed them, it is nonsense. Like you I want Wikibooks to be a wonderful library and I work hard for that. Why exclude authors like me who want to work cooperatively with readers and other authors and be responsible for their books? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "official" process is just to vote on Policies and guidelines/Vote in favor or against this policy. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try this. But first I have to do some homework - reading what already exists. My "fight" for this authorship right was not my aim when I began to work on Wikibooks, thirteen years ago. When I wrote my two books, I knew that there would be no authorship right, and I did not want any. I hoped a little that other authors would help me but I knew from experience that it would probably not happen. Now that my books are completed, I still hope a little that other authors would bring complementary chapters, or useful criticism. But I do not want anyone to be allowed to disrupt my work, or to feel free to do with it what he or she wants. I want to be responsible for my book. It seems to me that my reaction is natural, and that most Wikibooks authors feel the same. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any vote has been conducted over at that page in all the time I've been on Wikibooks. What few such votes we've had in modern times have been, to my recollection, at the proposals reading room.  We'd want to discuss it first, I think.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not read the main page as is but I'm aware of how things historically and in practice worked on site and do have my own convictions that Wikimedia has always refrained (I would say intentionally refused) to make clear to all beyond protecting their own copyrights/legal liabilities.
 * As I read the post above I think I see some confusion or improper of definitions. If I remember correctly this page was started under another name by myself (or as a result for my own efforts or making things clear) it was later renamed into this more aggressive name (aggressive to the intentions of most of us when participating in the project).
 * Thierry Dugnolle: "The rule that an author cannot refuse a modification of his or her book contradicts the usual practice on Wikibooks."
 * Not so. Anyone, not only authors can reject modifications, even non contributing editors. Specific books/projects can create (and have) their own subset of rules for editing (subset, as in non infringing on the main wikibooks rules). The only issue is that ultimately any edit conflicts if not resolved amicably will be haphazardly open to forced resolution by the sysops (sysops are only on recent years selected under a more strick set of requirements and often their capability to handle this disputes is not a consideration).
 * Thierry Dugnolle: "Completed books usually have one or a few more or less identified authors."
 * Often do in the form or author or attribution pages. Note that there are different communal factions on this regard. A majority that does not care about this subject culturally, ethically or morally or even about the legal considerations. A larger minority that seem to intentional make this subject harder to clarify or work to make them system dependent, this is the general position of wikimedia. In my view they seem to feel that it may be confusing or even barrier to get a larger number of contributors onto the project and even open themselves for liability. Then there is a very small minority, that I include myself that would like to see this subjects made more clear to all especially those that may have higher aspirations or considerations for the works in general and content contributors in this we at wikibooks, wikisource and probably wikinews should be at forefront on this area this projects are often attributed to authors (signed, owned) so with stronger rights attached.
 * Pi zero: "Wikibooks are not owned."
 * It depends on what you are refereeing too. Everyone retains ownership on all and every contribution they made and can claim rights over. Wikimedia is only granted s specific set of rights over the content. This can be important for re-licensing works and even to take legal actions. Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Panic2k4: When I say wikibooks are not owned, I mean nobody gets to say — in content space — "you can't change it because it's mine."  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the point on which we disagree. For me, if a book is my work, it's mine and I have the right to refuse any change I do not like. See my proposal WB:RFA --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Imagine that a contributor does not like my books, Handbook of epistemology or Quantum theory of observation, that he wants to put them in accordance with his own ideas, and that I hate what he writes. If he says "I feel free to make of this book what I want and you have not any priority over me", I shall let him destroy my book, if I follow your rule. Is it really what you want ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, do you forbid authors to protect their work ? Do you think all authors should be afraid that their work could be destroyed the next morning ? If you do, I will never work again on Wikibooks. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ownership is not control and control is not ownership. In fact confusing the two has historically been a problem, not only in regards to the topic at hand but a real civilizational dilemma. Control has degrees and scales but is ultimately an absolutist shared mental construct that is defined by the capability to maintain and enforce the (legal) rights of ownership, often established by force or contest. Ownership on the other hand, more often than not, does not need continued effort and has different natures like cultural, moral, ethical or legal. Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thierry Dugnolle, you can't enforce control on wikibooks or any other wikimedia project without communal concent, as I said before you can establish a subsection of communal agreements (rules) on projects but ultimately it would be for the sysops to enforce in case of an hard dispute. Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I want is to say to future authors that their work will be respected, that they will be protected against anyone if they want it. Do you think it is a bad rule ? I do not want to enforce it. I just hope that everyone will agree. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not allow original research on Wikibooks. We also do not allow someone to put something up here and then say "you can't touch it, because it's mine!".  No more do we allow someone else to muscle in on a book with an active contributor base and ignore consensus.  Books here are collaborative; everyone has to respect that.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will never say "You can't touch it, because it's mine" but "Touch it as much as you want. If I don't like it, I will erase what you wrote, and you can't protest because it's my work". Am I wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 00:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't inherently have absolute veto on edits to the book. Though in a particular case, you might be right; who knows?  That's a difficulty with hypothetical situations.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need this absolute veto. I would never have to use it. But why do you want to frighten writers with a hypothetical situation which would never happen ?
 * Since there was a conflict of edition, the following answer comes a little late : What is the book with the active contributor base ? Why did I muscle in it ? Why do you say I ignored consensus ? It is what I work for. I also think that wikibooks are collaborative, and I respect it. In their largest parts, my books expose standard knowledge, not original research. It seems that you misrepresent me. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not misrepresent you. I simply point out that we know the content involved is not inherently yours because OR isn't allowed. You keep claiming this is something that is the way things already are.  In fact, there are various situations in which an active community (sometimes an active community of one) on a book may exercise a consensus to object to certain kinds of changes.  The process of adopting an abandoned book is discussed somewhere around here; we encourage caution in assuming just because you don't see active editing taking place on a book that there's no-one in its current community.  In effect, the intentions of past contributors to a book are generally given some degree of weight in considering future changes .  But it's all very fluid, with infinite variations depending on the circumstances of a book; trying to impose simple hard rules and make them policy is asking for trouble.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want Wikibooks to be a text repository. I don't want to be an owner. But as long as Wikibooks let me work, I want to be an active worker. My working conditions are already good. I don't want them to change. What I want is to attract new workers with the guarantee that they will work in good conditions. I will never need to use the rule An author can refuse unwanted modifications, at least I hope so. All I want is to say it, because without it, many writers don't want to work on Wikibooks. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is what I wrote in the french Wikibooks of rules :

Cooperative work

To hope to make a book by the spontaneous encounter between several authors who begin to work on the same subject is a beautiful idea, but too often it does not work, unless the book responds to a collective will (such as this help book). The books begun with the hope that other authors will complete them remain generally unfinished.

On the other hand, other forms of cooperation work very well:

...
 * Make additions to existing books,
 * Criticize or request clarification (the discussion pages are for that purpose),
 * Just to correct minor mistakes (typographical, ...) when one reads,
 * Help a contributor, novice or not, who does not know all the useful techniques (wikicode, ...),
 * Ask for help or advice,

The possibility of cooperative work distinguishes Wikibooks from other free online publishing sites. It enables authors and readers to get out of their isolation, to help others and to be helped by them.

 * Do you think I want Wikibooks to be a text repository ?Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I see you alternate between saying you don't want to change anything, and proposing to change things. From time to time in discussions you make moderate statements that don't imply ownership, but when you propose policy you write ownership into it.  I'm unable to find a stable position in what you say.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 * What policy did I propose into which I wrote ownership ? There is no such thing in WB:RFA. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I say, my work. But I reason as a worker, not as an owner. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose you meant the sentence : "If a book is my work, it's mine, and I have the right to refuse any change I do not like." I deleted "it's mine". But I still think I have the right to refuse unwanted modifications. It is not the right of an owner. It is the right of a worker. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The authors I have in mind, responsible for their textbooks, are active workers. Even if their book is completed, they are still present on Wikibooks, because their book is supposed to evolve with the progress of knowledge and because they know other contributors can give additions, criticize or demand clarification. If they are more generous they can of course help others in many other ways. If an author abandons his book, he gives up his responsibility to the community. In this way, Wikibooks can not be a text repository. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As an administrator you probably see problems I cannot see. If you think about inappropriate content, this is a separate issue. That an author is responsible for his or her book does not mean that anything can be published. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except on my user page, or to answer other's questions, I won't write anything anymore on this subject. I wrote enough.
 * If you think that as a newcomer in the english-speaking Wikibooks community, I have been incorrect, you might be right. I almost didn't do any cooperative work, I did a little more in the french community, and I like too much verbal "fights". I try to remain civil, but as an administrator, you should be careful with a nuisance like me.
 * If you think the page WB:RFA has not its place in Wikibooks, you can do with it what you think is the best for the community : delete it, or put on it anything which says that it does not belong to Wikibooks. I won't protest. You said the presentation of Wikibooks could be improved, so that future authors would be more confident. I'm waiting for seeing that.
 * A final word about my purpose. I think that for scientists Wikibooks is the best place to write a textbook, because it gives the best working conditions, through cooperative work. I hope that they will understand it, and that many of them will come to work with us. I want them to know that Wikibooks is the right way to write a textbook. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why exclude almost all scientists from Wikibooks ?
The advice "Do not contribute your content to Wikibooks if you do not want other people using your contents in whatever way they want without your express permission" cannot be accepted by almost all scientists who could otherwise want to write their textbooks on Wikibooks. Why exclude them ? Do you think you can make of Wikibooks a great scientific library if you exclude almost all scientists from it ?
 * There cannot be restrictions on the content here for it to be free culture. For instance, anyone has the right to fork or mirror Wikibooks in its entirety or partially or to copy it to a DVD and sell it or to print it with an on-demand printer and sell copies at bookstores. How would a scientist be able to control all of those...? And if you're granting that he can't (preview: he can't), then are you suggesting that only Wikibooks proper be under his control but everyone else be able to propagate whatever versions of the text he'd like? It just makes no sense. I have yet to see any actual, substantial problem that is solved by this proposal. Can you please point me to a user who would otherwise work here but isn't because it's an open wiki? Can you show me diffs of edits that you would like to have undone but couldn't? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want unwanted modifications to be published under my name. Am I wrong ?
 * About other scientists, I don't know. I think WB:OWN prevents them from working with us and that WB:RFA would be an improvement. If we want to know, we have to ask. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Published under your name...? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Don't you know that Wikibooks can be signed ? See my Handbook of epistemology for example or Algorithms. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These pages are all published under all of our names: attribution is a requirement of the CC license that we have. E.g. this page when published should give your username, mine, and a slew of others. Any medium that publishes this page should include all of those names. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not as you seem to describe above. Contributors (not all but most) are not authors (authors are those that have at least the copyright over the work contributed and in what remains the final aggregate) and even those, only the top authors of an aggregation may aspire to be included on any author attribution by the publisher of a work. Note also that Wikibooks is not WIkipedia there most content cab easely be covered by a simple attribution to Wikipedia and that authorship is not granted but claimed. Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Ownership


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Sheep Sorrel

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Wood Sorrel

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Dandelion

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Sassafras

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Wintergreen

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Goldenrod

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Sumac

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Blackberry

/Transcluded Modules


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Clover

|


text:
Talk:Windows Programming/windows.h

Need someone to add to the third section the macros of type "WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN" which are meant to improve linking by ignoring the code which if included, would provide for little-used functionality. Several macros are available for use, but only this one comes to mind at the time.

title: Talk:Windows Programming/windows.h


text:
Geometry/Chapter 16

A construction is when one constructs a figure (such as a square, an angle bisector, etc.) with a compass and a straightedge.

Constructing a Congruent Segment to a Given Segment
To Construct a congruent segment to a given segment, set your compass to the both endpoints of the given segment. Then from a starting point on the second line mark off the same distance using your compass. This segment is congruent to the given segment.

Equilateral Triangle
An example of a construction would be the construction of an equilateral triangle with two intersecting circles. Two circles are drawn with the same radius with a point from each circle intersecting the radius of the other circle.

Then lines are drawn from the radii to the intersection of the two circles and between the two radii.

Now we have an equilateral triangle.

Angle Bisector
To Construct an angle Bisector: 1. Put the center of the compass on the angle and mark an intersection on each line.

2. Put the center of the compass on one of the marked intersections and then mark two spots near the center. Repeat this step on the other intersection.

3. Draw a line connecting the points of intersection and the angle.

Perpendicular Bisector
To construct the perpendicular bisector of a segment given the segment AB, first draw a circle centered at point A. Next draw with your compass a circle with the same radius as the first circle but centered at point B. Lastly, connect the points, called C and D where the two circles intersect. This segment is the perpendicular bisector. Reasoning: Any point that is the same distance from the endpoints of a segment lies on the perpendicular bisector of that segment. Given two such points you can draw that line.

Image:PerpendicularBisector2JPEG.jpg

Constructing a Congruent Angle to a Given Angle
To construct a congruent angle to a given angle first draw a segment on which you are going to construct the congruent angle. Place a point on this segment that will be the vertex point of the new congruent angle. Draw an arc(part of a circle) that crosses both sides of the original angle. Then using the same setting as for this arc draw an arc from the point on the segment so that this arc has the same radius as the previous arc. next use your compass to measure the distance between the points where the first arc crosses the sides of the angle. Now going to the second arc with the same setting mark the same distance on this arc as on the first arc. Connect this point with the original point on the segment.

Constructing a Perpendicular Line through a Point on a Line
Given a point on a line, first draw a circle using this point as its center. Using the two points where the circle intersects the line draw two congruent arcs that intersect each other. This point is equal distance from both endpoints of the circle and thus on its perpendicular bisector as is the original point. Connect these two points to complete the construction.

Constructing a Perpendicular to a Line From a Point Not on That Line
To construct a perpendicular to a line from a point not on that line, use the point as the center of an arc that intersects the line in two points. Your original point will lie on the perpendicular bisector of the segment formed by these two new points. Using these points as the centers of two congruent arcs that intersect one another you get another point on this same perpendicular bisector. Connect this new point with your original point to finish this construction.

Constructing a Triangle congruent to a Given Triangle(SSS Method)
To construct a triangle congruent to a given triangle, first construct a base side in the same way as constructing a congruent segment. Measuring a second side of the given triangle with the compass draw an arc from one end of the constructed segment. Setting the compass to the length of the third side of the given triangle go to the second point of the constructed segment and draw another arc whose radius is the same as the third side and intersects the first arc. Connect this point of intersection with the endpoints of the constructed segment to finish the congruent triangle.

Constructing a Triangle Congruent to a Given Triangle (the SAS Method)
To construct a Triangle congruent to a given triangle using the Side Angle Side method, you must first construct an angle congruent to one of the given angles of the first triangle. Then use the compass to measure one of the sides of the first triangle that is next to the angle and then measure the new side next to the new angle. Then measure the side on the other side of the angle of the first triangle and use it to construct the other side of the new triangle. Connect these two constructed points to make the third side of the new triangle.

title: Geometry/Chapter 16


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Wild Carrot

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Wild Onion

|


text:
Swahili/Lesson One

Tourist Greetings
(Taken from http://mwanasimba.online.fr/E_index.html)

Jambo!
 * This is a word that means "hello". The answer to this is just to repeat the word back to the person whom you are talking to. "Jambo!"

Salama?
 * Are you fine? This is how you ask that question. Again, to answer this, one simply repeats the word: "Salama!"

Mambo Vipi?
 * How are things? To answer this, you could respond with, "Salama", meaning fine, or with Safi or Poa tu, which mean cool.

Habari gani?
 * How are you? To answer this, just reply with the words listed above, or "Nzuri", which is good.

Authentic Greetings
Hujambo
 * How are you?
 * Sijambo! -I am fine.

Hamjambo
 * How are you? (Plural)
 * Hatujambo -We are fine.

Shikamoo
 * My respects. (To an older person)
 * Marahaba -Thank you

Greetings
Hujambo? "How are you?" (lit. What things?) Sijambo "I am fine" Unaendeleaje? "How's it going?" (lit. How are you going?) Unaitwa nani? "What is your name?" (lit. Who are you called?) Ninaitwa Mustafa."My name is Mustafa." Habari za Mohammed? "How is Mohammed?" (lit. News of Mohammed?) Nzuri. "Good." Habari za asubuhi? "How are you this morning?"

title: Swahili/Lesson One


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Wild Garlic

|


text:
Wikijunior:Languages/Swahili

What writing systems does this language use?
Although originally written in Arabic script, Swahili writing is now based on the Latin alphabet that was introduced by Christian missionaries and colonial governments.

The Swahili alphabet now contains all the same letters as English with the exception of Q and X, with Q only being used in loanwords and foreign proper names.

How many people speak this language?
About 5 million people speak Swahili as a native language. About 80 million people speak it as a secondary language. It is more common as a second language because it is used as a language of business in an area where there are many different tribal languages. People need to learn Swahili to buy and sell things with people who have other native languages.

Where is this language spoken?
People primarily speak Swahili in Zanzibar and Tanzania. There are smaller communities of Swahili speaking people in Burundi, Kenya, Mayotte, Mozambique, Oman, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

What is the history of this language?
It is uncertain where or how Swahili first came about but it is general believed that Swahili speaking people have occupied their present territories, hugging the Indian Ocean, since well before AD 1000.

It appears to some researchers that Swahili started in a number of Arabic trading posts. People speaking different dialects of Bantu, a local language, found that it was difficult to communicate with one another, so they adapted Arabic and Bantu to create a language for business, Swahili.

Who are some famous authors or poets in this language?
Utend̠i wa Tambuka, which means "The Story of Tambuka", is one of the oldest known pieces of literature in Swahili. The author of the story identifies himself as Mwengo, son of Athumani or Osman. Little is known of him. The story is about "the Byzantine-Arab Wars" and "Byzantine-Ottoman Wars" between the Muslims and Byzantines, covering a period from 628 AD to 1453 AD (the Fall of Constantinople). Like other early Swahili writing it was written with the Arabic script.

What is a simple song/poem/story that I can learn in this language?
Here are some interesting Swahili sayings that you can learn.

title: Wikijunior:Languages/Swahili


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...g6/2. d4

=Modern Defense= White has established his center and Black is planning to destroy it from a distance. He may play an immediate /2...Bg7/ or delay it and play /2...d6/.

A transposition to the Caro-Kann is possible by playing /2...c6/.

Theory table
'''1. e4 g6 2. d4'''

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...g6/2. d4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...g6/2. d4/2...Bg7

=Modern Defence= White now has several choices of pawn structure to adopt. The most flexible move is /3. Nc3/, giving White some time before deciding. However, it denies the access to the Averbakh Variation (/3. c4/), the Geller's System(/3. c3/ and 4. Nf3) and the Three Pawns Attack (/3. c3/ and 4. f4).

/3. Nf3/ is also possible and will transpose early into the other variations. /3. h4/ is an attacking move that was discovered by Bobby Fischer. It aims to weaken Black's kingside pawn structure and make Black's king more vulnerable. Black may have difficulties castling in some lines arising from this move.

Theory table
.

'''1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7'''


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Plantain

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Strawberry

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Greenbriar

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Bladder Campion

/Transcluded Modules


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Chicory

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Milkweed

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Pickerelweed

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Acorn

/Overlapping requirements


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Autumn Olive

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Pine Nuts

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Pine Needles

|


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Edible Wild Plants/Day Lily

|