User talk:Conspiration
Info[edit]
For new entries, please click here and additionally leave a remark on my german talk page if possible.
Re: Poker players' images[edit]
Sorry, I don't think I can help much. I do screen-grabs to get most of the images I've put up. Essexmutant 06:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Holdem.jpg[edit]
I appreciate that you contacted me regarding holdem.jpg. I wish I would have had a moment to respond, however. That picture is part of a set that was originally licensed under a creative commons license. The author at some point (after I uploaded the image) changed the tag on flickr. Both the GFDL and Creative commons licenses contain a "no rescind" clause which prohibits people (like wikipedia) from being caught depending on an image they can no longer use. So, although the author changed the tag, he cannot actually make the image non-free anymore. This came up when discussing another picture by the same author at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shuffle. Not that you did anything wrong, but it might have been good for you to ask me first before tagging. Long standing authors might feel like you accused them of wrong doing by not first checking into it before tagging. Personally, I'm not upset, but there are many with thinner skins lurking around. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 10:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry for inconvenience. You should talk to administrator on commons and explain the situation. Thank you for your advice. --Constructor 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Chess translations[edit]
I assume you wrote to me in response to my translation of Alois Wotawa from de: to en:. Originally I intended to write it from scratch, but when I saw that de: already had an article, I used the Babel Fish to produce an automated translation, which I then edited. I can do this for other chess-related articles because I know some German chess terminology, even though I don't know German in general.
I wonder if de: has an equivalent page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, which would help me see which other articles are covered in de: but not en:. Overall, I am impressed by the fact that de: covers chess more thoroughly than en:, even though for many topics en: is the most thorough.
Thanks for the message. I don't spend as much time writing articles as in the past, but even one or two more translations would make this process worthwhile. I have a list of "personal" requested articles here. Shalom Hello 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]
|
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ľudo Lehen[edit]
Thank you for commenting on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ľudovít_Lehen#.C4.BDudov.C3.ADt_Lehen. Your view, however, has not made me very happy. Regardless of the fact that I know Ludo personally - and I have confessed that in the AfD debate in question - I would like to discuss with you the view that just a FM title shouldn't be enough for notability (IM probably, GM is always).
(Well, I should admit also that by chance I hold FM title too, but that is irrelevant in general reasoning. I am not going to write an article about myself. :-))
The first point: Do you know any of Lehen's works? I admit I have never seen any Zinar's except Mat Plus site and that is just because I read everything there. On the other hand I know Lehen's production (and to that matter, production of today's fairy elite) quite well. There were times, especially in 80's, when his works, mostly joint with IM Juraj Brabec were absolute world class. E.g. their twomover got detailed explanation and awe in column Nader Bekeken in Probleemblad, but that is just one example of many complex twomovers from field they have pioneered together. This is however one of things I cannot bring to outsiders as they would not understand single sentence. While these problems are absolutely incomprehensible for average chess-player, they sure are notable in chess composition world.
The second point: Why do you think FM title is not enough? How many composers are in your view notable enough for Wikipedia? Only GMs + (maybe IMs) + a handful of pre-WWII composers? This is at about 100? About 200? What should be criteria in your view? What I perceive as the most grim in this respect, it is the fact that many songs and bands are present in Wikipedia even if they made it just once to the Top of something. But composers with lifetime achievement recognized by official body should be non-notable just because they have no Wikipedia active fans.
Maybe I will think up some other arguments, but I do not want to step into that particular deletion debate anymore as this could be understood as unjustified holding of ground for Ludo, only if someone calls me again. Instead, I think more in direction of adequate presence of chess composition in Wikipedia. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- And I already know who you are (and you should know me). I'll reply somewhere else. You can feel free to post the interesting parts of the reply here (anonymously, of course) :-) --Constructor 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Fast alle in der heutigen Löschdiskussion --Gereon K. (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I understand German more or less, so do it youself, please. Grüß aus Schlesien, Mibelz, 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- PS. I would like to tell you that an article on Vitaly Chekhover became already written. -- Mibelz, 11:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Good job on the article! Danke schön.-- Mibelz, 9:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for trying to provide balance to Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day[edit]
Hey Con! Just wanted to thank you again for your attempts to provide balance to the Surveillance awareness day proposal. It is critically essential that we educate, not just pontificate. NSA employees aren't 'the enemy' as simpletons would suggest-- they're good people trying to do a good deed in a time when no one is sure what the rules actually should be.
That said, the 'focus' of Feb 11 is on mass surveillance, not espionage. When two nations are at war with each other, they will spy on each other. The mass surveillance controversy is more focused on governments spying on their own citizens, their own allies, or neutral parties. So far as I can tell, the spying on hostile regimes is not a source of controversy.
I would really love more suggestions for you about how we can acheive balance while still maintaining a tight focus on mass surveillance of citizens/residents/allies. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the line is hard to draw: Was it espionage, or was it mass surveillance of enemies (and is it espionage on citizens or mass surveillance that most governments do nowadays)? Are those Al Qaida fighters criminals, terrorists, enemy combattants? And what is the difference between a terrorist and a fighter for freedom? Where would we classify someone who tries to take a government down with a bomb, when he thinks that government is unjust (for example Georg Elser)?
- In my opinion clear distinctions between words are not always possible, which is also how civil rights can be taken away, or in some cases enforced.
- This did not start recently, however. As an old but blatant example of bending words outside of anything related to surveillance: Thalidomide is not dangerous as was proven by tests on animals. So it is also not dangerous to humans since humans are animals.
- In this crazy world, words only mean what you want them to mean. --Constructor 00:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Conspiration. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Conspiration. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I see that in 2006 you uploaded a file File:Schachmathematik Keym.jpg to dewiki (later transferred by bot to Commons) for the article Schachmathematik. Even with machine translation (I do not speak German) of the information, I still can't figure out what it is intended to represent (specifically, what is its relevance to the topic of mathematical chess problems). Would you like to explain it? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is a graphical representation of the solution of a problem by Werner Keym. --Conspiration 10:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Conspiration. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Conspiration. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
April 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Prolog. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Zero Hedge, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Prolog (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for the message! No, if it is relevant, someone else will add it. --Conspiration 21:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
American politics discretionary sanctions notice[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)