User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available. If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here. Pictures from Picasa Hi, im also a registered member on Picasa. The picture you mentioned about are from the user mohsin's album and I did ask for permission before using them on wikipedia. If hes doesnt have a problem with me using them why would anyone else? If I am asked my the user to delete them from wiki I would be more tham happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC) Hey, yes sure, ill get in touch with mohsin asap and get that done but i think ill be needing a hand when it comes to this URL etc etc thing as i aint too good with all that. I would really apprciate your help! So please kindly instruct me step by step on what i need to do & i will get in done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC) Hi, looks like i have lots to do lol but dont worry ill get it all done asap. Just want to know how long do i have to do all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC) mda pic Hi I have done what you asked me to do, sorry i keep making the same mistake time and again I always put own image because I find it easier but ill try not to make the same mistake again. Also do I need to put ive photshopped the image? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 10 2008 (UTC) Darkbot Please visit www.freezedown.org once again, You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. Yes I do. If this doesn't satisfy the requirements then remove the information completely. Thanks juicejar mda picture sorry i thought you just wanted me to add the authors name? I dont know about its copyright satus to be honest & sorry once again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 12 2008 (UTC) Right I understand I think! Like you said, the website does not anything on the copyright & to be honest im not too sure what to do next. Plz help. Also just want to ask if the latest to pictures i have added are ok, I think they are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 12 2008 (UTC) Right ill get in touch with him soon about it. As always appreciate your help— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 12 2008 (UTC) Hi, just been on the world66.com website and found this on copyright, http://www.world66.com/about/copyright_policy So this means im ok to use images from the website as long as I put the authors name right? And yet the images I last uploaded from this site were up for speedy deletion! Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 13 2008 (UTC) Yes i did photoshop shivala temple image only because the orignal image from the website was very poor qualitywith buffalos around near the temple which didint exactly look too good. Also i did want to delete the first image of the temple i uploaded becasue i was happy with the edit but did not know how to. Would you do this if you know how to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 13 2008 (UTC) Boy this is alot harder than I expected, seems like I cant do anything right on here & anything I do contribute is analysed by everyone on here. Just want to say you should check other articles on cities ive seen a london image photoshoped and that has a gold star for its edit! Any I think the best thing for me to do is wait till my cousin gets back from pakistan, hes took my camera & has pictures of all the citys notable places. Thanks for your help & sorry to bother you time and again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:174_7432.jpg this is the image I was talking about & most of them are editied using different softwares but none have any sort of tags on them. So what exactly is your job on here if you dont mind me asking? Do you know anyone who can help me contribute on the mirpur article? Theres so much to add there things like history, dispora, local economy etc etc but dont know how to start of. Any tips? Copyright issue Hi, MoonG. ☺ I've been wondering about the copyright status of Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png. Someone (originally Emilfaro, I believe, with an earlier version of the image) made this image using data from a WHO document, using a different map projection etc. from the map in the WHO document. Do you think there would be any copyright issue re WHO or is it fine? Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I'd take that one to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is where I go when I'm not sure myself. :) (P.S. Hi!) My work with images is still pretty limited. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the advice, MoonG. Since the image is on Commons (which I forgot to mention to you), I'm taking it instead to commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) That discussion worked out fine. (A little birdy told me to post here.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (Hi again! tweet tweet) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) In the same spirit as the above message, this message is to say "Hello!". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC) template_talk:weasel I want to use concrete terms. He wants a jeneral one. I don't want equivocation in the template. He insists on it. I want to put some levity into an audio submission I made. He flatly rejects it. I suggested a change in my audio. He did neither confirmed nor denied that it would be an improvement to be precise (substitute "draw" for "suck"). I don't think it's safe to analyze motivation from the typed word, regarding biased. He won't accept that significance or notability concerns content within a page, too. I don't feel like going through the recording process if I don't trust his judgement on these other issues. BrewJay (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. You may want to refer to the dispute resolution policy for ideas of how to resolve your differences. For example, since it involves the two of you, you might ask for a "third opinion" at the relevant noticeboard. Please follow the instructions for neutrally requesting feedback. Meanwhile, please do not continue attempting to implement change to the template before gaining consensus at the talk page. Templates may be widely used throughout the project, and edit warring on them can be particularly disruptive, as the changes you make can affect a great number of pages at the same time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see that you've just been to 3O. However, your request there did not conform to the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about. I would have revised it for you so that it did, but I'm afraid that I can't quite grasp the nature of your dispute. I've removed it for now. The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four. If you need help revising your request, I'm happy to help you formulate it. Can you explain briefly what you want to do that the other editor does not? And how an audio submission relates to this template? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what "30" is. I made up a form on the administrator's notice-board with five participants named. Two versions are there, so you can answer the questions without inspecting history or talk space. I will copy results to the talk space in a few days, and you are welcome to do so if results are in before that time. BrewJay (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. I'm sorry; I didn't notice that I'd messed up the formatting of my wikilink. 3o is WP:3O--the third opinion noticeboard. (I've fixed the link above now.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe you'll notice that the effect of your actions has been to take the issue completely out of my hands and decide in favour of David Levy, another admin. Your referral to the "dispute resolution process" (deletion process, really) was irrelevant. My first impulse at recognizing that I was going to be frustrated on every turn, once a day, was to take it to WP:IRC, and I think that's what I will do, now. In the future, I think that's what you should recommend. BrewJay (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Nobody asked for protection. It looks like the discussion was locked, too, even though it isn't. Maybe that why I don't see any votes, yet. BrewJay (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. Material on my talk page will be archived after a period of inactivity. I don't blank content here, as I keep it for those archives. The talk page is not protected, or you would not have been able to edit it. I imagine, though, that the other responders at ANI, who I invited to weigh in on the question of protecting the template in the same manner that other highly transcluded templates like Template:Fact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) already are, may simply not have much feedback to give on the specific wording question. You might get better feedback by inviting participation at an appropriate noticeboard, like WT:NPOV. You may find more editors there who are interested in discussing potential changes to that template. You might either place your question there, with a note at the talk page of the template that you have done so, or place a note at the NPOV talk page asking participants there to join the discussion. Do remember, please, to phrase your question carefully, in keeping with WP:CANVASS. A neutral pointer to the discussion is perfectly fine, in an effort to attract neutral participants. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar Thank you so much for cleaning up the Salesian High School article! MY♥INchile 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you. :) I monitor WP:CP tickets for a while after resolution to be sure the problem doesn't reassert, and I noticed you were requesting verification of another fact. Added. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Mi Reflejo - Quality scale! Hey, sorry if I'm bothering you, but in the last days I expanded the article Mi Reflejo and so I asked myself if you could review it again?! Olliyeah (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I've done the paragraph thing..thx.. ;)Olliyeah (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks Moonriddengirl, you're everywhere I look! Thanks for your evaluation of a few of my (many) album articles. I appreciate the constructive criticism. It is a good reminder of some guidelines of which I was sort-of-aware and the consequences of sometimes choosing to ignore them. Although I may not be in a hurry to fix these articles, I'll keep your advice in mind as I go about composing others. Regards, MrFizyx (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) The album guidelines aren't necessarily written in stone--sometimes there may be good reason to ignore them or good reason that you can't meet them (some of the album articles I work on are old enough to lack readily available information), but, unfortunately, they do have specific requirements for article rating. OTOH, while it's undoubtedly a great feeling to see an article you've worked on get a good rating, there's plenty to be proud of even of the ones that don't. :D I've written maybe 80 album articles. So far as I know, only one of them has even been rated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Great minds think alike [1], [2]. – iridescent 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC) LOL! Oh, well. We'll be watching, eh? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The weird thing is, he might actually be keepable – but his fanclub are, to put it mildly, Not Helping Their Case. – iridescent 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I combined you two geniuses posts into one post at WP:AN. Hope that's not disruptive. Block me good if it twere. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) MRG is almost seven times more likely to be my sockpuppet than the highest profile alleged-sockfarm in Wikipedia history are to be sockpuppets of each other. The software don't lie; my secret is out. – iridescent 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Only you would actually look that up, Irid...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I've always had a vague fascination for just how inaccurate the "proof" that tool provides is, and how many of the soi-disant Defenders of the Wiki over at SSP use utterly crackpot evidence, ever since I first spoke to Taxwoman and Poetlister and realised that if these were the same person, it was someone so convincingly impersonating two people with completely different interests (not to mention sleep patterns) that they were certifiably insane, rather than the two pleasant and helpful people I was talking to. (Incidentally, it provides a far more convincing case for me being a sock of Poetlister than of Taxwoman.) I have never understood the mentality of the sock-hunters; if I want to post to Wikipedia under three different names, then why the hell shouldn't I? Since all our processes are (repeat after me) Not A Vote, the "ooh, they might votestack on AfDs" argument isn't worth the time of day. – iridescent 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (sorry MRG for all the orange message bars - hoping you're offline so you "only get one" :-). I agree, Irid. I've never been too keen on SSP, until disruption happens. i.e., votestacking. Here's the thing. If an editor, any editor, by creating multiple, influential "editor in good standing" accounts, decides to speak up at AFD, etc, then it is disruptive. It just is. I don't care what you say, AFD is a vote. I close dozens of AFDs weekly, I find it rewarding and at the same time mindless. I don't "count" votes, but I do weigh the merits of the arguments presented certainly, as is my yoke. If an editor is able to convincingly create multiple accounts, aren't they also able to then create multiple "delete rationales" or "keep rationales" at XfD, thereby flying under the radar of XfD closers? How is that less damaging than the more obvious ones like what brought you, MRG, and I, here? (namely "southern avenger AfD). In my mind it's more damaging. One person, a human, somewhere in the world, has created multiple accounts so convincingly that they are about to fly by undetected at deletion discussions, thereby keeping what they want and deleting what they want. Terrifying really as it relates to the integrity of this little project. Keeper ǀ 76 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ←I was. :) feel free to use my talk page. It feels very cheery to come back to! :D That software is pretty scary! (We both edited the article YouPorn? I don't remember editing the article YouPorn. Although after looking for my name in the article's history, I kind of wonder if 90% of Wikipedia has edited YouPorn.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I went and added two appropriate commas to the lead of YouPorn just so I could be in you two's little club :-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Ha! YouPorn sucks in another Wikipedian! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Heh. You had me at "you porn sucks". Too much inuendo for me to read any further...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Ha! Oops. </blush>. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Re to Keeper on SPAs – either XfD/RFA aren't votes, in which case it doesn't make a difference if one account makes three valid arguments, or three accounts make one valid argument. Or, they are a vote, in which case why don't we just come out and admit it instead of all this whining about "consensus". If anything, I'd say one editor making multiple points carries more weight in an argument debate than multiple posters making one point each, providing you keep them below the tl;dr limit; just look at the "oppose per..."s and "support per..."s that myself, Ryan, Malleus and even Majorly leave in our wake at RFA. – iridescent 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC) I think XfDs/RfAs halfway are votes...and halfway aren't. I look it at it this way. If you have two positions that are each equally supported by policy, then the numbers who weigh in on a given side are going to equal rough consensus. If you have 1 person arguing within policy and 100 not, the numbers don't matter. (Hard to come up with clear examples of that that don't fall down to something like WP:C.) The problem with sock puppetry and canvassing is that consensus is meant to be formed by a representative cross-hatch of contributors. Vote-stacking gives an improper view of the community's will by skewing the distribution of your sample. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Copyvio issue with Dey Mansion Hmm, well you are right, I don't remember (don't remember the website either), but from the sounds of it I made a mistake when reviewing the article... you say it was the 8th paragraph, which probably means I missed it when skimming through the page. I'm glad you brought it up, I'll be more prudent in future! Glad you caught it anyway, cheers for the note, - Toon05 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No problem. Even though you might not remember, I figured I'd better check in case you had investigated and found evidence that the other site had copied from a public domain source or something. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC) sabrina newman victor canceled the funeral service and held a private burial this is for the Sabrina Newman articlePeterparker3000 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. I don't routinely contribute to that article. My involvement with it stemmed solely from the copyright violation reported to the copyright problem board. If you want to discuss potential additions to the article, you might want to do so at Talk:Sabrina Newman. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Yaltah Menuhin This is a message from Iain C. Phillips. I contributed an article about Yaltah Menuhin, which you have deemed to be an infringement of copyright. On your page, you state that two messages sent to me were bounced back; I don't know how and why that happened and am in process of checking the reason(s) with my webhost. I AM the webmaster of the Yaltah Menuhin website and chairman of the Yaltah Menuhin Memorial Fund. The article I contributed is therefore in no way an infringement of copyright, but I would be happy to answer any further questions you might have. My e-mail address is ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Iainphil (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Hi. Although I left instructions at your talk page for how to verify that information in a way that Wikipedia can use it, I'll resend the e-mail address. The problem may be with the "contact ymmf by e-mail" link on your webpage. It launches an e-mail window addressed to the following: ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.nl <ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.nl> Both of my e-mails to that address were returned with the following failure message: “ Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.nl Technical details of permanent failure: DNS Error: Domain name not found ” (I didn't just resend but clicked the "contact" button a second time.) Hopefully, an e-mail addressed to ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.com will fare better. :) I have just resent it to that address, and if it somehow goes astray as well will advise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Yaltah Menuhin Thank you for your prompt response. I am going abroad tomorrow for two weeks and will pay serious attention to this issue as soon as I get back. Is that OK? Sorry about the confusion; clearly I have to sort out a number of things a.s.a.p., but promise to be a good boy in future :-)iainphil (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC) No problem. We do have to keep the material blanked until we get official permission, though. I'll make a note that we should be receiving it soon. If it'll make it any easier for you, I'll resend just the "release" portion so all you have to do is forward it to the proper address. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Yaltah Menuhin None of your e-mails have reached me (yet); this might be a "real" problem with my webhost (being looked into by them as we speak/write). Have changed my Wikipedia contact e-mail address to iain.phillips@planet.nl. If you don't mind resending to that address instead, I'd be very grateful. Once again: my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainphil (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) No problem. They're on their way. Hope that I didn't accidentally copy the final "." into the send address! If I did and they bounce, I'll try again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Regarding questions about Kalpesh Sharma article deleted under speedy deletion I had posted an article which was deleted by you under speedy deletion. Can you kindly please tell me how to post the article that I created? What is the way to remove speedy deletion marked on any article. Tulsha Sharma Tulshasharma04 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Hello. The article was originally deleted following a deletion debate, here, which reached the conclusion that the individual did not meet notability guidelines. In order to establish an article on that person, you will need to be able to demonstrate that there is significantly more information than available at that time to verify that he does meet the notability guidelines for people. This will require reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines or respected news websites, that are independent of the individual. Primary sources and blogs are not usable for this purpose. Article creators may not remove speedy deletion templates from an article. If an article you've written is nominated for speedy deletion, you may--if you receive the notice in time--place a {{hangon}} tag (include brackets and all) on the article beneath the deletion notice. Following that, you explain at the article's talk page why you feel the article does not meet the stated rationale, and the administrator evaluating the article will consider your reasoning. You may also continue to edit an article that is tagged for speedy deletion to alleviate the tagger's concerns. In this case, since the article has been multiply recreated following the determination to delete, the space has been temporarily protected to prevent accidental creation of an article there. If you can demonstrate sufficient reliable sources to address the concerns raised at deletion debate, it may be appropriate to unprotect the space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Barnstar thanks (belatedly!) Hi - thanks so much for the barnstar, and please accept my apologies for my tardiness in responding! Our phone line went out the morning of July 28 and our DSL connection went with it - it took until this morning (Aug 7) to fix. Our broadband DSL service is through a local company, but I'm still cursing AT&T because it was actually their fault because it's actually their actual line, actually. They did the same thing last winter, too, and we were offline for almost three weeks. They get really nasty and ugly if someone (like me) doesn't like their crappy, slow DSL and goes with a faster, cheaper, better company for DSL service. Phooey on 'em. Anyway, Centrx reverted my changes back to the old, outdated, incorrect version while I was temporarily compromised Internet-wise. So, today I rewrote it again, to address some of his concerns. I left a note on the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if you'd chip in there too. It's not perfect, but simply reverting to a version that was two years out of date isn't the way to go. I know how tough it is to slog through those big CP backlogs, and it bugs me no end that we pout and preen our "Thou Shalt Not Violate Copyright" feathers to newbies and the press while we sit on months and months of copyright backlogs that everyone seems to ignore. I stopped working there because I just couldn't spend all my time and energy at it with little or no help. I mean, there's only so much one girl can do. I'll check it more frequently, and we'll get this admin advice page hammered out pretty soon. I can't put my finger on what the page needs, maybe because I've looked at it too much. Fresh sets of eyes will spot where I'm using too many words and then I'll smack my forehead. Well, maybe not quite like Homer does, 'cause I'm cuter. ;-) Thanks again, very much! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 06:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC) My pleasure. You done good. My DSL has been flickering like crazy for weeks. It hasn't gotten to the point yet where I'm willing to wade through customer support, but I know it's going to go belly up at some point. :/ I know the pain at this point of the CP backlog. When I stumbled upon it, it had over 20 days accumulated (I don't remember how many, but when I complained about it at AN there were 20 left :)). It's up to date, but I spend a good 4 hours a day keeping it that way. I've been wondering if it would be possible or advisable to try to organize some kind of Admin Backlog taskforce of admins who are willing to focus attention on those areas that get badly backlogged. I'm not the best cat-herder, though. My change to the instructions was very minor. My first change was wrong, because I'd just stumbled out of bed. Fresh eyes are better when they're fully open. :D As I noted at the talk page, we've got another change likely in the future as a new image CSD seems to be near the point of implementation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Louis Sterling entry copyright Hi, I spotted you've deleted that - it was too complicated to get my employers to release the content properly! I'm going to have a shot at re-doing at some point, I hope that's ok? RJM81 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. No problem, so long as it's written in your own words. I can see why the release would have been complicated in that situation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC) St. Michael's Cave Hi there! I see you have recently deleted the content of this article as it was tagged as copyrighted material. If I remember correctly, parts of the article were not lifted. Is there any way of having the deleted text copied onto my user space in order to re-write it? Thanks in advance. --Gibmetal 77talk 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. As you know, the entire first paragraph was copied from this source when the article was established. Unfortunately, there were no copyright free versions in history. I noted that you had copied the contents of the article to the subpage with a thought to revising it. However, unfortunately, in doing so, you duplicated the copyright violation. The purpose of the subpage is to allow revision from scratch. It can't contain any of the copyrighted material, which would then remain in history. It also can't infringe on the GFDL contributions of previous contributors, which means that the material must be rewritten entirely. Additional information included the claim about the name, which was either taken from or afterwards mirrored to here, along with a note that this grotto is now being utilized as the Sanctuary of Monte Sant'Angelo. It incorporated a sentence from this source, "It is...Gibraltar's events" (but not, fortunately, the pun.) Give me a minute to look through the deleted history so I can determine what information you may have added which you can reintroduce without GFDL concern. Other material, I can summarize for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Okay. You, yourself, added the following text, and you should be able to reintroduce it as long as it is your own original language. If you introduce it to the article, there will be no attribution concerns for GFDL, since you introduced it originally: It is now used as a concert theatre and has been used in the past to house events such as the Miss Gibraltar beauty pageant. located in the Upper Rock Nature Reserve largest hall, named The Cathedral Cave It has been a venue for events such as the Miss Gibraltar beauty pageant show, as well as son et lumière shows. The cave is also used to hold concerts of all music genres, from operas and philharmonic orchestras to pop and rock. Notable acts who have performed in the cave include Steve Hogarth and Breed 77. You probably know this, but if you copy the above from the page source, you can copy formatting, too. Forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious. :) I also see that you added a reference to the base material and removed a "copypaste" template in 2007. Unfortunately, a reference is not sufficient to alleviate copyright concerns with pasted information. The material must conform to fair use requirements. This material, unfortunately, didn't. It seems that you contributed most of the non-infringing text to the article, so the above additions should help you flesh it out nearly to where it was. Information at the copied sources can, of course, also be included as long as it is not copied or as long as a paraphrase does not follow closely enough to form a derivative work. Please let me know if I can provide you any more information about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC) merging 'habbush letter' until this thing is hashed out a few more days/weeks, i appeal to your good nature to please reconsider whether merging is the thing to do. the media is rather quiet about it, i know. but they are perhaps just waiting. as suskind has said, maguire (one of his sources) may not have even read the book. suskind has yet to release more taped transcripts. he also may have other sources than maguire or richer. plus there is the whole 'office of special plans' theory. there is nothing to report... yet.... this will take some hard digging... if anything is there, it might take a few days / weeks to find it. until then, please consider not merging. wikipedia, if nothing else, can be a good place for people to come, in this case, to learn the basic facts of the case, in a simply laid out manner. i even have spent hours on that page, and i still learned things by reading what others had written. please consider all of the screaming headlines on various blogs, websites, and so forth, making outlandish claims about this incident. people are saying all sorts of things that are not actually in the book, such as 'bush forged documents'. at the very least, wikipedia seems to be trying to get the facts straight, which imho could be a public good. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.199.173 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Hi. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I have not been involved in proposing a merger from or to Habbush letter. I did complete the merger from White House Iraq-War forgery allegations to The Way of the World (book). If it's the "White House Iraq-War forgery allegations" article you mean in terms of spending hours on it, the material is not lost. A merger does not delete information from Wikipedia; it simply relocates it to a different title. I'll be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you'd like to clarify. Unfortunately, your contribution history under this IP is not helpful to me in figuring out which article you're discussing, since it doesn't show extensive involvement in any of the articles. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) User 71.139.42.128 and 71.139.30.138 FYI, banned user Griot has returned to making dubious edits to Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004‎, User talk:Griot and other pages. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)