User talk:Garion96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Filing cabinet icon.svg

Why you delete Major-Articles?[edit]

Why you delete Major articles? You delete the artist King TMD for copyright violations! Check MTV and or whats the problem? Its not a copyright violation! GEVEN1 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Maria Desylla-Kapodistria[edit]

Dear Garion, before you deleted this page I wish we could have had a conversation. First when I wrote the page this wikipedian was made aware by a bot that there seemed to be an infringement so he changed the wording, so therefore the designation was made before the changes which should have been made evident from the editorial history. If more changes needed to be made could you not have informed me so appropriate edits could have been done. Can you restore it and then we can make the necessary moves together? It is the subject of the article which is worthy the first female mayor in the history of the modern state of Greece and the great grand-daughter of its first head of state. Looking forward to your reply.Masterknighted (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Really now if the material from the violation was removed and the source material remained in a way which it was altered so as that it was no longer a violation then it would not have to be removed becasue properly citing a source is not a violtaion. So I would appreciate if you would repost it with the violation removed so that I can improve it where it needs to be done. If somebody swipes a pack of gum you do not shoot them you instruct them not to do that again, you in effect rehabilitate them. This article just needed to be corrected.Masterknighted (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Subway Surfers[edit]

I've been looking through the page history and been seeing a lot of addition of unsourced content. I think it would be a good idea to put Semi-Protect into Pending Changes so every edit that comes in could be subject to review. This would reduce unsourced content from coming. ///EuroCarGT 03:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that the main problem user has been indef'd, can you put it back to semi? We're not supposed to be using PC2 at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


I just want to let you know I'm assuming some users on the Subway Surfers article for sock puppetry, for abusing multiple accounts, illegit reasons and disruptively editing. So I put them up on SPI. The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amazzing_Me_King. ///EuroCarGT 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Running Man (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standoff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (seriously)[edit]

Thanks for taking out the copyrighted lists from the SF and Fantasy 100 novels lists. I had created them a while back, and was not aware that such lists are copyrighted. oddly enough, i had just discovered this last month, but i didnt have the heart to remove the lists myself. i was also just a little unsure of the rule, and didnt know if i was overly cautious or overly lenient on myself. anyway, im glad you did this, now they are clean and guilt free for me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Mercurywoodrose :) Garion96 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright restriction of best lists[edit]

Hi. Can you provide a source for the copyright protection of lists such as David Pringle's 100 best novels? We should know precisely what constitutes a violation and avoiding deleting such lists entirely. There must be thousands of such lists here, maybe 10000 including best players of every sports season. --P64 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists#Copyrightability_of_content for when a list can be posted or not. Garion96 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Most influential books[edit]

Can we add something like... "the list has torah, upanishads,(more 2-3 names) as one of the most influential books." Bladesmulti (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is no problem. Just the complete list is not allowed. See Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, and Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Garion96 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you have proven that they are violation of copyright(if whole list copy+pasted again), I think you must delete all previous changes. You are a admin, and copyright watcher. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a requirement to purge a copyvio from from the history, although if not too difficult I always do it. Since this one is so easily to remove and the copyvio is not integrated in the text it doesn't need to be removed from history. Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, anyways, I got a question, can I copy+paste the table from this page? [1], can be used for Classical_element#Hinduism. I am not good at verifying the copyrights, but this writer is using the text from Ayurveda, written thousands of years ago. So thought of asking from you. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Joy of template current and its relatives[edit]

I thought that this conversation might interest you, on the talk page of {{current}}.
Template talk:Current#Reworking this template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels[edit]

is there any way we can remove the full list from the edit history of the article? that would stop anyone from casually adding back the list. if the publishers ever surrender copyright, we could uncover the list, so nothing would be lost. i was the original creator of the article, and created the list, before i understood that such lists are under copyright.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted "Jan Scully" Wikipedia Page - Looking to Create New Page[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and looking to start a new page/article on "Jan Scully." When I searched for her, it shows a previous page was deleted by you due to copyright issues. Before I start a new one, it's suggested I contact the administrator who deleted the first page/article first. Jan Scully is the current Sacramento County District Attorney, so not sure if it's the same person.

Please advise on how I should proceed. Thank you!

Deleted "Jan Scully" Page - Creating New "Jan Scully" Page[edit]

Hi Garion - I am new to Wikipedia and looking to create a new page/article on "Jan Scully." When I searched the name, it shows there was a previous "Jan Scully" page that was deleted by you due to copyright issues. The results page says to contact the administrator who deleted the previous page. The Jan Scully I would like to create a page for is the current Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully, so I'm not sure it's the same person as the previous, deleted page.

Please advise. Thank you!

Syorio (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)ShellySyorio (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification[edit]

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Joe Williams (jazz singer)[edit]

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:New Skin for the Old Ceremony.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New Skin for the Old Ceremony.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Pemu (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Skin for the Old Ceremony.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:New Skin for the Old Ceremony.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello, could you as an administrator please have a look here and help out, thanks. HempFan (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Justine Suissa for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justine Suissa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Suissa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Garion96. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Garion96.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Garion96. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)