User talk:Magister Mathematicae

Disclaimer:

I'm human. I perform several hundred actions each day. Once in a while I make a mistake, I apologize for them. If you tell me in a calm way where I'm mistaken, I'll fix it.

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance.

The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link See also: [1] [2]

ARCHIVES Last archive point

Caratacus

I accept your offer to mediate. --Nicknack009 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Didn't see this until today (been busy travelling to exotic libraries) otherwise would have noted my accepance before. WikiRat1 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

You may find this useful. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As new clerks I'm sure you're eager to get to work. I've summarised the current status of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Administration#Pending_cases. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to do some cases, please leave something open for me. ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShortJason

Advocating your recall as an admin is not inherently incivil, nor is it an attack. Please do not remove comments from others' talk pages. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I hope you are not abusing your admin powers by silencing your oppositions, namely ShortJason. When did Wikipedia become Zimbabwe? Arbiteroftruth 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi, I also noticed you posted on ShortJason's user page that "Checkuser proved this user is a sock of User:Orange Rocks which is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:TJWhite." Could you please point me to the associated RFCU? Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 04:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFU is for doing requests, but that's not the only way to get a checkuser. So I can't provide a RFCU page since there was none, but it was CU checked (in short, it was CU checked, not RFCU requested) -- Drini 17:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see some evidence that ShortJason is a sockpuppet? Arbiteroftruth 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File a RFCU if you don't believe me and you want to be sure. I don't need to prove it to anyone who asks. There are means for you to verify by yourself-- Drini 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After conducting my own research I agree that ShortJason is probably a sock, but surely an open RFCU would have been better in the interest of transparency? And try not to be so defensive with the "I don't need to prove it to anyone" attitude. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I acted with judgement. somebody else got a checkuser to lookup, was confirmed, was tagged. I'm getting tired of the "vandal defense attorneys", bugging me with process is more important than doing things right. That's why I was so defensive. Specially since this is the kind of things that could be checked independently (via RFCU). Also, nobody sane would block tag in bad faith claiming to be checkuser verified without it being so, any reckless admin doingso is likely to get desysopped very quickly.-- Drini 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drini, Bush acted with judgment too. Everyone acts with judgment, even Hitler. Does that mean the judgment is correct? No. You vandalized my talkpage, and targeted a user who did not agree with you. Should I have an expectation that you will be objective in blocking users? No. I don't expect you to be objective nor fair. True, ShortJason might be a vandal or sockpuppet, but I have not seen any evidence. All I see is you reverting his comments on my talkpage, and targetting him because he disagrees with some of the actions you have. Now, I want to see some evidence, or I am going to have to see this as a typical case of an admin resorting to the Mugabe Formula.

I'm inclined to not replying you until you get the facts straight. Editing a page (even if to remove content) is not vandalism. And I didn't targeted him, he did earn what he got. Such rallying was a gross violation of the wiki ways. You may have not seen eivdence, but evidence exists.If you do want to see evidence, go out there and find it, there are means. I won't provide it since you don't have your facts straight. -- Drini 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Drini, I am not sticking up for vandals. Do not confuse questioning with treason. Arbiteroftruth 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How typical of a person who did something wrong: hide behind rights to remain silent. This implies guilt. Arbiteroftruth 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coment above restored from [3] -- Drini 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Forever Old block

I was just looking through the Category:Requests for unblock, and came across Forever Old, which you blocked as a sockpuppet of ShortJason. I generally trust you, but I thought I'd ask if you could point me to some evidence of sockpuppetry. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked personally a checkuser, if you need more evidence, feel free to file a RFCU for verification. -- Drini 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, feel free to unblock, I also trust your decissions. -- Drini 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit overloaded grading exams at the moment, I?ve asked another admin to review and unblock if needed. -- Drini 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drini is protecting Illegal Copyrighted Information which is against Wikipedia's Rules

Copyright Violations by "Zoe" is against Wikipedia's Rules! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios and Zoe revert to. Putting or reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

sigh* I apologize. It's been fixed for a while however, it's not even the current version. THe copyright violations have been removed after a while. -- Drini 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violations are still there. Nothing has been fully fixed. You are protecting the copyright violations. WHY?

System doesn't allow deletion of old versions. NOthing I can do, nothing any admin can do -- Drini 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still some copyrighted information remaining in the current GSE article. Thanks for your assistance.

The copyrighted information is NOT fully fixed yet. You are the one who is protecting the illegal copyrighted information. I just checked it again. You have vandalized the article by protecting the copyrighted info that wikipedia does NOT have permission to use. You will have to REVERT back to BEFORE Devios put to copyrighted info on the website. And way before you protected this illegal information. It is strange you are protecting illegal information. Check the history, you must revert back before August 25. There is STILL vandalism in it started by Devios. And you and Zoe reverted back to this vandalism. I don't understand why you are all doing this. Copyrighted information does not belong on wikipedia's website. Again, you are protecting the vandalism. Why? The current version has vandalism in it reverted by you and Zoe. If you want to remove all of the copyrighted illegal info you must REVERT way back BEFORE Devios put the vandalism information onto the GSE article that you are wrongly protecting the vandalism still caused by Devios. Please explain why you do not let my ERASE the vandalism portion that you are protecting. There is proof in the history section that YOU have reverted back to this illegal information. I don't get it.

I won't revert back. You all work and make consensus. Article is iunprotected, go and make changes, not my business. -- Drini 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am making an official complaint here against the user Devios for braking the most important pillar wikipedia's rule, copyright violation. Please forward my complaint to the correct department regarding this serious matter. Devios is the one who started the problems with the copyright violation with the GSE article. Thank you for your help and understanding. Good Day.

Devios doesn't read my page. Write on his talk or some public forum (like WP:AN, WP:COMM, etc. -- Drini 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations about what steps to take against Devios' copyright violations. Also, I just checked the grapefruit seed extract article. It is still blocked and protected. I am unable to clean up the copyright violations at this moment. This is what it states when I go to the grapefruit seed extract article. ~Due to recent vandalism, editing of this article by anonymous or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account. "This is ironic since you, zoe, and devios are protecting the copyrighted illegal info that does not belong on wikipedia's website.

Oh I unprotected BUT forgot to remove the banner at top. Don't mind it, go ahead. -- Drini 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to go ahead as you insist BUT it is still protected. I understand now. You are playing around with me on this serious copyright violation matter. Again, you are fully protecting some illegal information on the wikipedia's website. The Grapefruit Seed Extract article has been blocked by you for unsubsantiated reasons. And you are protecting copyright violated materials still to this day!!! WHY?

Drini has been notified in writing about the copyright violations as written.

You have now intentionally and knowingly protected information that is in direct violation of wikipedia's rules. The above information link to grapefruit seed extract has been proven to be copyrighted information that you have illegally protected. You have been notified in writing that you are protecting information that does not belong on wikipedia website in regard to the grapefruit seed extract article in question. Protecting copyright violated materials is considered vandalism according to wikipedia'a rules. Wikipedia does not own some of the remaining copyrighted materials in the GSE article you protected that is in the current version at this moment.

scary. Notified in writing.

*sigh*

Well, something happened. I redid it. Here's the proof, now go do something else -- Drini 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Zoo box...again

He's back, and he's still uploading images with bad licensing...after having been warned innumerable times by you, myself and others. Please do something. Alr 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]