Talk:3DS Honeybee Hive (Skipper93653)

Request to remove v1.0 from Wiimm's CT-Archive

@Wiimm v1.0 contains stolen content from my own version of the track which I never authorized to use. Please remove it from the Custom Track Archive.
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 15:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

v1.0 isn't even in Wiimms archive (yet). But I think Wiimm will add it anyways - the wiki page states what parts were taken from your track so it is not "stealing" it is building upon freely available content. -- Leseratte (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It was, but he already deleted it. Also, the rules apply to updates of the same version of the track, not new versions, read the Published Works Policy. If this was not true, I could take any CT right now, modify a texture and release it as my own version of that CT. Why do you think we removed Quick Course but not track updates without the confirmation of the author?
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 21:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The published works policy uses the term "content", not "track". And "content" includes "objects". Nobody asked Nintendo for "permission" for using the itembox model in their CTs either ...

And about that "edit war" thing - I always find it interesting when someone claims "edit war" that the added content gets removed prior to discussion. Why wasn't your removal of that update already starting an "edit war"? Why can't an edit stay put until it is discussed? -- Leseratte (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's see here...

If you are editing another author's work, first contact the author of the original content. → Did he edit my work? No, he copied and pasted it. Did he contact me? No, someone else contacted me.

If he officially allows you to edit his work, do so and release it as update. → Did I allow him to edit my work? No, I denied it to the person that contacted me. Did he release it as a update of my version? No, he released it as a update of his version.

If the author claims he will do an update himself, give him a reasonable amount of time to do so. → Did I claim I will do an update myself? No, my version was already released and is not subordinate to his version. Did he give me a reasonable amount of time to do so? No, even if he updated my track instead, not even a day passed after he posted an update of his version reusing the assets from mine.

If the author disagrees with your edit, you can still edit the content and post it as an update → Did I disagree with the edit? Not in this context, as it was not an edit of my version. Did he edit my content and posted it as an update? No, again, he updated his version.

you must leave a download link to the last official version of the original creator on the page, too. → Did he leave a download link to the last official version of my version? No, because he wasn't updating my version. That's the whole point of this part of the Published Works Policy.

And now I ask you again: if this was not true, anyone could modify (or as you say build upon freely available content) from any other track made by someone else without their permission and release it as their own version, right? In your sight of view, this is perfectly acceptable, so I am just reusing assets and not breaking any rules, even if I'm not respecting other authors. Well, that's not how it works. One thing that we should clarify is that respect comes over most of these rules. Is it stated as a rule? It isn't, in fact. But if we just rely on what the rules specifically say, then you can't deny the points I gave against that rule from the Published Works Policy, and it's not my opinion, it's the fact that he didn't update my version of his track. Let's put it in a different perspective: the main purpose of a Wiki is to allow users to submit data freely (which favors your point of being able to reuse any assets), but it also has the purpose of creating a community. Without respect, there's no community, and with different interpretations of nearly inscrutable rules like these I can confirm that the sense of community is being lost as well. To start with, Skipper released his version not even a day after I released mine, in a rushed manner to raise the competence in favour of his version. I can tell it's rushed because he didn't even bother to check in game if the honey effect worked, in fact, it's not even into the KMP. The Stingbies are there, though. He also blamed me in the Trivia section because apparently it's my fault that I managed to fix my version that day, coincidentally, so I'm the culprit even after he grabbed files that he was supposedly told not to use. Now, if you say that I never denied him to use my files, well, in that case he never asked me directly. Someone else (whom I'm protecting their identity), acted as an intermediary between Skipper and me to ask for permission of using these files, and I denied to them, so in theory, I denied the usage of these files to Skipper, and even if the intermediary never gave the response back to Skipper, then we can consider that he never asked me.

About your point of view of the policy, let's see what would happen if we allowed anyone to reuse any asset for their own version of their track, shall we? I could pick a track such as 3DS Rosalina's Ice World (MysterE99 & Skipper93653), and fix a few things such as the LOD bias of the textures, to match the values from Mario Kart 7, and change the penguin models to the ones from Mario Kart 7 as well (which I already did a long time ago for another purpose). Here I'm doing everything right as you please: I'm building upon freely available content to create my own version of the track. It's not fair because the KMP and KCL files are directly copied and pasted from one version to another you say? Well, the policy never specifies which kind of assets can be reused, so it does not matter. Even if I just changed one single pixel of a texture and released it as my own version, that's perfectly fine according to your points, isn't it? If it isn't, just tell me where it exactly says that you can't do that on the policy, which you're solely relying on. May we have a little more of common sense in this wiki, please? Thanks.
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 13:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate this kind of discussion and do not really want to waste any more time with it. That's why I just briefly skimmed this discussion. Nevertheless, I want to clarify my point of view without going directly into the discussion:

• From the beginning (2010), I strongly support the freedom that everyone can use everything. That is the only way the community works. On top of that, on many things, at most Nintendo can claim ownership rights.
• Without the openness and mutual help we would not have achieved so much. This applies to tracks, software and knowledge. That's how I hated the secrecy of Torran. If many people had behaved like Torran, the community would have been broken. Nevertheless, one should pay attention to certain things alone from netiquette. The most important are communication, inquiries and credits (honoring the performance of others). And also waiting for the takeover of objects belongs to the Netiquette.
• Skipper93653 was very brazen. He neither asked nor waited for some time. He has not even mentioned that Atlas is the author of the bees. That may be legal under the wiki rules, but it's just rude. So I can fully understand the hassles of Atlas.
• I put Skipper93653's Arena in private mode. Therefore, the track is not visible to the public. But I want to change that in a reasonable time.

And so I stand on both sides at the same time!

-- Wiimm (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)