User talk:MosheZadka/Archive02

Active discussions

Sock puppet(s)Edit

Thahk you for your information. Well, just my personal opinion, we don't have a habit to call anons sockpuppets ... it is applied only to register (and mostly one-time) users in my impression. Though after reviewing related pages, I understand why you would have liked to say so. At least the second anon seemed to claim he is not identical with our "214" .--Aphaia 4 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Sysop nominationEdit

MosheZadka, as I threatened earlier, I'd like to nominate you for Wikiquote sysop, if you're interested. It may seem like bad timing, right in the middle of this Abortion fiasco, but that just reminded me that we're shorthanded and that I was just waiting for you to acquire some more WQ experience. You been editing here not quite three months, but you've made over 1300 edits, worked on a growing variety of articles, added quite a few yourself, participated in some ugly anti-vandalism efforts, and been a regular VfD contributor (all of which I wrote down here so it's handy for my nomination, should you choose to accept ☺). Let me know, at your leisure, what you think. — Jeff Q (talk) 4 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I am very flattered, and happy to accept the nomination. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
Excellent. I recommend you respond by accepting the nomination I just made on Wikiquote:Requests for adminship when you get an opportunity, just to dot the is and cross the ts. — Jeff Q (talk) 5 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

You are now a sysop— welcome to the ranks of Wikiquote administrators. Your services to the project have already been extensive, as a few others have already noted, and I expect you will make very good use of the additional abilities. We seem to have a pretty good spanning of the globe with our sysops now, and hopefully this will help us keep many of the vandals from making very much of a mess before they are blocked. ~ Kalki 05:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to identify problems, suggest solutions, debate, and voteEdit

  • I was going to invite others to look at my analysis anyways, but Aphaia has suggested this:
  • "I would like you to consider if it is a good idea to invite other editors to read through over 100K talk. In my opinion, it is a sort of burden and shut out most of editors. And I suspect who is now interested in this issue. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)" [1], and I shall do as asked.
  • You are invited by me, Moshe, to look at my analysis at: and see if all the problems are identified, and if not, add one or two. Also, please notice that you can post your proposed solutions below. Afterwards, we can briefly discuss and then vote on different ideas. Don't worry: I addressed all concerns, but if you don't believe me, check it out. Sorry for the length, but many people had many problems.
  • In conclusion, I have done all the research: Read my analysis, debate it, vote on it, and accept the vote -even if it goes against you; All will be well. Take my word for it. Have a nice day.--GordonWattsDotCom 5 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)


Thanks for welcoming me! --Smoothhenry 5 July 2005 08:35 (UTC)

And also for your merger ;-) --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

That is OK; it reduces page-clutterEdit

I got your message on my talk page regarding moving some off-topic comments; I will try to send the anon an email, assuming that it was she who emailed me. Hopefully the new user is experienced enough to see comments in the page history. That is what I do. Thank you for dropping me a note; I am sorry that I don't have time to fully contribute and at a slower pace. Hope my contribs and thoughts were helpful. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)


I, GordonWattsDotCom, hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar for flawless archival of just what needed to be archived at Talk:Abortion while leaving just the relevant materials, as good or better than I would have done it myself, which is impressive in itself.


Hi, MosheZadka, I think your template "sign" is very helpful. I wonder if you would have an idea to create similar templates, for instance, for preview recommendation. And also we need to consider re-design Template:Welcome. Perhaps better after re-organozation of edit guide documents like "Guide to layout". I hope to hear your idea. Cheers, --Aphaia 6 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!Edit

I'm new here but the choice of category for Western Gull seemed peculiar. How is a bird a place? Sabine's Sunbird 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

Thank u for the welcome, I got a bit of a longer one from UtherSRG in Wikipedia. Well Thanks again

Le Dieu ...Edit

What do you mean with this quote? At any rate it seems a sort of joke, not discussion or necessary information. I can't figure what you meant totally --Aphaia 8 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Well, it is tongue-in-cheek reference :) I meant we should delete all these articles, since they're transitioned to ws which handles them better. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)


Hi, MosheZadka, I am afraid you analize a bit loosely our speedy deletion policy and it is doubtful for me if you have checked possible links to the Go (board game); for example its Wikipedia equivalent. Besides it is not a proper speedy candidate, there might be some links from other websites, and it is not harmful to keep it as redirect. In addition, if I recall correctly, such merged article is usually kept as redirect. so I recommend you reconsider your request. Thank you. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)

Changed, and thanks for your note! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)
Thanks! And sorry for rants (I made a bunch of typos in this message ...) --Aphaia 8 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)


Hi, Moshe, I just saw your list --- are they all of uncategorized pages in fact? If so, it is really amazing. If not, your idea is still helpful and great. I put Petronius now under the authors' category. I hope to do so to some other names. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Since it's mostly for myself (but also for others) the definition is somewhat fluid. It is of "uncategorized and/or horribly miscategorized pages". Thanks for the info, I'll remove Petronius from it! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)
Thanks. If I leave a note to each (re-)categorized page, do you mind? --Aphaia 8 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)
No, but it's better just to delete them from the list :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)


I have a different idea about it; because it is suspected to be a copyvio, you would be nice to keep it for review or at least could leave a link to the revision in quesion. And in my opinion, if it is a copyvio, it would be better to delete it once and then post a new version without problem. But it is just my personal thought. --Aphaia 22:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Done, see my message at WQ:VFD ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dark vs. VampireEdit

Customarily, as I've heard the usage, "Dark Willow" refers to Willow going black-haired in the last episode of Season 6. The Vampire Willow in season 3 is usually called just that. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Point taken; character name has been edited in accordance with your suggestion. As originally posted, she was "Evil Willow", so I think my version, while erronneous, was still anm improvement. Thanks for your input. --RPickman 00:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow - that was FAST! Forgot to mention earlier that I tend to assume the always-thorough Jeff Q will correct any errors I make on the Buffy page… but it's better if he doesn't have to. --RPickman 00:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; the "always-thorough" Jeff Q hasn't been as thorough or as fast of late. And you guys rarely make "errors" (a term I generally confine to inaccurate dialog), so much as style variations that I merely bring into conformance with my only partially-written guidelines (and only because everyone humors me by not overriding them). It's a good thing, too, that Buffy has so many conscientious editors — no reason I should have all the fun! ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Humors you? Everyone takes your partially-written guidelines and copies them to their own pet TV show page, and even if not, tend to take it as consensusy enough to edit shows which don't have a clear guideline according to it...which is why I think it is time to write up a template. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply from TualhaEdit

Hi, thanks for standardizing it, I don't really come here much so I don't know the style. I looked at a couple of old ones and copied their style. Cheers, Tualha 21:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gilmore Girls collisionsEdit

Hmm. We seem to be messing with each other's attempts to move the massive additions to "Unknown episode" to the correct episodes in Gilmore Girls. I'll back off for a while and let you finish what you want to tackle; your sources seem to be somewhat more comprehensive than mine. I'm using transcripts that provide the complete dialog (although many eps aren't yet transcribed), so I can sort what they do have in chronological order. I must say that, despite the extra work our new contributor gave us, I'm glad to see more folks taking an interest in this excellent show! — Jeff Q (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks. I'll read up on formatting before I make any more additions.

Dave 17:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed offended; I wasn't. Thanks again for the welcome. Dave 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Table O' ContentsEdit

Thanks for fixing the table of contents on Ratzinger or whatever his super form name is now. Would you mind explaining what the tag or syntax is for tables and why that one was in the middle of the article? Sveden 19:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on sysophoodEdit

Congratulations on achieving sysophood! I probably don't have to tell you how happy I am that you've joined the official ranks after all the work you've been doing here. (But I guess I just did, anyway. ☺) And I like your use of a single tilde as a signature separator. It's more distinctive that the traditional hyphen or the double-dash, and it's easier to type than my — or the "—" Unicode character. Thanks for the idea! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcomeEdit

Thanks for the welcome and intro. --ZeWrestler 12:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • by the way, how can i redirect my wikiquote profile to go automatically to my wikipedia profie? --ZeWrestler 12:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Jeff. Since this is the first time I've sent things to speedy delete (as opposed to deleting after a VfD), I wondered if you could look over the logs and tell me if I did everything alright. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative. (It's always a good idea and often essential to specify and provide a link to the article at issue. In this case, I hoped I figured it out correctly with a little research, but the less research you require for a favor, the more likely it'll get done. ☺ And I can't emphasize enough the utility of providing links to anything that a reader might reasonably click on for more information in any discussion, like the "speedy delete" link I added to your query above.) Anyway, addition to the category looks great, but I don't quite see how it meets any of the 10 guidelines for speedy deletion candidates. The closest I could come up with are the following:

2. Test pages (eg "Can I really create a page here?").
This is meant for trivial test pages, primarily from newbies who don't know about using the Sandbox, not for proposed page changes and/or their discussions.
9. Deleting an image which is an exact copy of something else, redundant, and unused.
This is not an image. Duplicate or unused articles or other pages should go through VfD. In fact, images have been VfD'd here also, as we know.
10. Users requesting the deletion of their own personal subpages.
This is not a personal subpage. This rule exists because users are considered to have complete authority over their user namespace (subject only to community rules and review). Test pages for articles are considered community property, so their deletion should go through VfD. (That's why I sometimes create experimental pages under my user namespace.)

I also looked at the page and was somewhat confused by its purpose and effect. As of this moment, Frenetic Five does not follow the format shown in Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative, so the db reason "main page already has that format" doesn't seem to be correct. Also, if you're going to use a subpage to present a recommended set of changes, it shouldn't be a Talk page. Talk pages are supposed to be for discussion about articles or related pages. Proposed changes for "Frenetic Five" would more appropriately go in a page titled "Frenetic Five/Alternative", so that its Talk page could be used to discuss issues about the alternative. (See Wikiquote:Proposed Votes for deletion and its Talk page for an example of how this works.)

I recommend delisting "Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative" from SD, reviewing its status, and then VfD'ing it if desired. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I deleted them on sight, not applying to {{delete}} template. Perhaps it was a mistake? :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
(These pages: Talk:Martin Luther King Talk:Musicologist Dimitris Varos) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh! (You see what I mean about specifying. ☺) I agree with your SDing of the two talk-page spams, although I would probably have blocked the IP for 24-48 hours first for the spamming. (Did do any more spamming that has been deleted?) You were exactly correct to SD "Dimitris Varos"; I suspect we may eventually have to block the IP and/or create a blank article to prevent repeated attempts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

cross referencingEdit

is any cross referencing done automatically? if I added quotes to the love page, do they automatically get added to the authors' page, to the main index pages?

Also, the template for Theme quotes is insufficient for things such as poem excerpts (or play excerpts) where keeping line breaks is necessary. I came up with a suggestion on the page to look at, any comments on that?

Thanks! (Added by User:Zyrain)

1. No, nothing is added automatically. WYSIWYG :) While this is a limitation of using wiki software rather than dedicated quotes-database software, I hope you will grow to appreciate the advantages. Please feel free to add these quotes to the people pages.
2. If you feel a template is missing needed flexibility, please explain that on Wikiquote talk:Templates, where you can also make suggestions. We will be more than happy to work with you on better templates.
Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

True CallingEdit

Hi, Jeff. I wondered why you changed the Eliza Dushku red-link to point to wikipedia? Is there a guideline on not redlinking actors or something? The reason I am asking is that I did this on purpose and noticed it was a redlink, and I thought it might be nice if we ever have a Dushku quote page. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out the template for films (which is essentially being used for TV shows as well). You'll notice that actors, writers, directors, etc., all have WP links instead of WQ links. For now, the vast majority of people in films and TV shows have no quote articles. (Many of them don't even have WP articles, but that's the place for editors to create the logical encylopedia articles.) Using WQ links instead of WP links in articles is one of the main reasons we keep getting useless encyclopedia stubs on people; editors see red links and decide to create a blurb about the person. That latter problem is hardly confined to TV and film articles, either — many such red links from theme articles get inappropriately turned blue, even though the editors have at least one quote to add to the new person article. (That's the problem — people still think more of encyc rather than quote for links, even here.)

As far as I know, we have no real guideline on when to change WP links to WQ links, other than the obvious — when someone creates a quote article for the person. Anyone familiar enough with WQ to know that's what we want hopefully knows to change such links, if they know about them. The real problem is that there's no convenient mechanism (like "What links here") to find such WP links even after the article is created. (A "Search" should do it, but that's not as easy, and one can miss spelling differences in the names.) The whole issue is just one more frontier for expanding Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

TV-show format instructionsEdit

You may have already noticed this, but in case you haven't, I've created an experimental page that permits a detailed formatting explanation for a given TV show (à la Talk:Buffy) without using talk pages, which are really a bad place for such instructions. (For why, see my comments about "Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative" vs. "Frenetic Five/Alternative" above, as well as the detailed discourse RPickman and I had on the subject a while back.) Your comments and contributions would be greatly appreciated, especially since, at the current moment, you and I seem to be the two editors driving this TV-show format practice. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

List voteEdit

Sorry for late reply, just now I visited your "list vote" page. Thank you for your compliment, it is my pleasure and honour. ;-) I think your preparation as quite nice. Would you introduce some examples of real usage of this feature on English Wikiquote? It would help voters to consider how it works to see both its appearance and source (wiki markuped text). --Aphaia 17:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Derek DevenpeckEdit

Hi, Jeff. I am probably misunderstanding something -- should the dead discussion remain in WQ:VFD forever? Probably not. If so, does your "no archive" comment means the discussion should just be deleted? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of clarity. Speedy-delete entries that appear on VFD apparently just get deleted, although we've left the 2 or 3 we've had for a few days, with a message like "as this was speedy-deleted, I will remove this entry after a few days for review" (from one of my prior deletions) to let people know their imminent fate. I know it feels a little funny, but I guess the idea is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Veronica Mars formatEdit

Hi, Jeff. I have edited Veronica Mars to link to a format page which has characters and links to Firefly (TV series)/Format, as well as reformatting the article correctly. I would appreciate it if you would take a look, as the second show to use those guidelines. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! I fixed a few remaining stage-direction format differences to use the ''[text]'' format. Only difference I see now is that VM still has what I would call context lines (complete sentences separate from dialog lines) embedded as stage directions, but there's no clear division between the two. (That's another reason I specify whole sentences for context lines. If it's a complete sentence, I think it shouldn't be embedded because it distracts too much from the quote itself. But that's just my opinion.) It's pretty obvious from your Veronica Mars/Format just how your two-part link scheme could work as a general system, with most of the stuff in Firefly (TV series)/Format going into a page hanging off Wikiquote:Templates or equivalent. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as "stage directions" and what qualifies as "context" -- there are several examples on the verge (like "clasping his hands and looking at the heavens", or "holding the camera"). Thanks for your format fixes! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I call a "context line" something that provides a necessary setting or description of action without which some of the dialog makes little sense. (Example: "Wash is playing with plastic dinosaurs.") I call "stage directions" the quick notes embedded in the dialog lines themselves, which are meant to give a necessary hint of how the dialog is meant to be interpreted, when the words alone are ambiguous. (Example: "Mal: Right. [sad look] We win.".)
When one is transcribing dialog, one has a tendency to include many stage directions and contextual data that have no direct impact on the quoted dialog, even though they may be a major part of the interest in a scene. The thing to remember always is that Wikiquote is a text-based quote database. We can't adequately describe visual or aural events, so if the quote is mostly interesting because of these auxiliary elements, then perhaps it shouldn't be listed here. In the case of something like "clasping his hands and looking at the heavens", I would ask myself if someone who isn't watching the scene needs to know all that information, and if it can't at least be trimmed to a word or two. Ultimately, there are no hard and fast rules, so we can only use our best judgment, and it will likely vary between individuals. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for creating pages for John Clare, Yusuf Islam, and Emma Lazarus. I'd had enough time to gather a bit of material for all of these, and to propose expressions by them for the Quote of the day, but had not had enough time to format much of the material into proper pages for each. Today probably has been the one day where I have had least amount of time to check in here since I became a sysop in early 2004, and haven't had much time to do much more than roll back a bit of vandalism. ~ Kalki 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Signing VfD closuresEdit

Could you please sign when you close a VfD? Since VfD closure is a potential point of controversy, it's important to make clear who does the closure. (Of course, it's in the history, but signing is the standard mechanism to provide transparency in decision-making.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered — page histories aren't obvious, either, because the archiving of a VfD entry into WQ:VFDA may be done by someone else, leaving no trace of the vote closer in VFDA. This is an issue whenever votes are closed by one sysop but moved by a different editor (as I'm about to do for some current VfD entries). I'm afraid your commendable conscientiousness in processing VfDs is beginning to bite you. <wry grin> This is a major reason why I'm trying to discourage spreading our sysop work across too many issues. There just aren't enough of us to handle all the problems; we need to make sure that the basic ones are consistently addressed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and as long as I'm already being an irritant ☺, could you consider using a closure time that allows "rounding up" a bunch of entries? Since votes don't have to be exactly 2 weeks long, setting an advance "rendezvous" (like 23:00 when you start hunting for deletion candidates around 12:00) allows vote closers to set a reminder for that rendezvous time, rather than periodically check throughout the day to do the next closure. It's hardly crucial, because a vote closer could always set their own rendezvous at the end of a spate of votes, but this would reduce the window for post-closure voting while making block closures easier. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As the newest admin here, I appreciate the feedback! Sorry for all the goofs :( I'll try and do better. I have added language to that effect to the documentation. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikiquote VfD is unfortunately a rather complicated process, and you're coming in after several months of process discussions. If you haven't already, check out some of the old discussions at WQt:VFD and WQt:VFDA; you'll find that most acknowledge the current system is not viable for the long term. At some point, we'll have to make more changes to reduce the load on the sysops, but we also don't want to increase it on editors. Thanks for updating the instructions! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Format question for MosheZadka and JeffQEdit

I am admittedly a new contributor here (I'm enjoying myself immensely by the way), and I have a question for you (and for JeffQ as well). I've gotten conflicting direction between the two of you regarding formatting of dialogue. When I first started, I copied what someone else had done and included the hr line breaks between pieces of dialogue (and which I see you've added to my recent Million Dollar Baby input). I liked the look as well, but was told by JeffQ that this style is discouraged here and that I should use the format specified in the templates. As a result, I went back and changed the entries I had already made. I definitely don't take offense to criticism (I want to ensure that I follow the proper way to do things), but I'm curious which way is correct. I'm assuming that both of you are admins here, but there seems to be some inconsistency. Thanks in advance for the help (and could you also let JeffQ know about my request). UDScott 16:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Million Dollar Baby voteEdit

Hi, Jeff! I was wondering if you would not mind changing your vote on Million Dollar Baby. Many quotes from it, as you know, have been added. I know your original vote was conditional, but it is probably best if you change it just to avoid sysops looking like they play favorites. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that quotes had been added. I realize now that UDScott had mentioned adding dialog to it in a separate conversation, but hadn't recalled that it was on VfD for lacking quotes. I'm afraid I don't always connect all these separate activities in my head, especially when I've been distracted by major issues elsewhere. Thanks for calling this to my attention. I have changed my vote as promised. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you don't necessarily have to get enough people to change their votes for an article to be kept. If it has been substantially improved, the vote-closing sysop can make a judgment call that the justifications for its original nomination have been removed by subsequent edits. (See Wikiquote:Deletion policy#Decision policy, 2nd paragraph.) This is even easier when the Delete votes provide specific reasons (like Aphaia and I did) for choosing deletion, as it is logical to infer that the objections have been dealt with. That's why I usually include a note about "substantial improvement", if appropriate, when I close votes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur ComicsEdit

"It is pretty awesome to see another Dinosaur Comics fan! woooo! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)" Seriously!

Also, thanks for the welcome. Thanks. For it. The welcome. From what little I can tell from the little I've been around wikiquote, you really make an effort to reach out to new users and whatnot. Also, thank you for reminding me to sign on talk pages. AnotherLoophole 05:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User images in CommonsEdit

I have recently updated my own picture, just to be cool like everyone :) However, seeing Aphaia's note on VfD, I went ahead and uploaded my picture to commons. Since we are thinking of disallowing pictures here, I hope you will not think it is too rude of me suggest that perhaps uploading your "Jeff as dimension" picture (under the GFDL anyway) to commons and using it from there. I am reviewing the list of pictures now trying to figure out if there's anything we are going to need. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not rude at all. I've been thinking about that myself. My concern at the moment is that Commons' stated goals can be interpreted to imply a disinterest in user photos (personal collections), which motivated my question in WQ:VFD#Clarence McCoy. But I haven't taken the next logical step and asked about it at Commons:Village pump. I'd prefer to wait until we get an official position from them before we start encouraging people to move any images outside the main articlespace. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MosheZadka/Archive02".