User talk:MosheZadka/Archive04

Hi, Scott. Thanks for your help in reverting vandalism. Please note that usually the term "spam" is reserved for various "link-spam" schemes, and not for random vandalism. The difference is akin to the difference between burglary and vandalism in the "real world": while both deny the owner the use of his property, the former enriches the burglar. When dealing with vandalism, especially if it's confined to one page and easily revertable, the usual procedure is to add the {{[Template:test|]]}} to the user's talk page, as a mild first warning. A serious repeat vandal, or a spammer (even a one-time spammer!) will usually be blocked. You can always add a note at WQ:VIP in such cases. These traditions are kind of folk-lore here, unfortunately, and as far as I know there's no clear documentation for these things. Thanks again for all the help ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

• No problem -- I usually keep a watch on pages I create or work heavily with. I wasn't aware of what to do, other than reverting the pages back to their latest valid version. By the way, I used the word 'spam' because I thought that the word vandalism was to be reserved for rampant or obscene altering of wikiquote pages, rather than what is the case of Top Gun was mostly harmless changing of a few bits of text. But thanks for the info. I'll be better informed next time. As always, I'm eager to learn the ways of WQ. :-) UDScott 17:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that WQ was only for notable persons. The main page simply says it's "...a free online compendium of quotations...." I suppose Methuselah is not particuarly notable, he's just a guy on Usenet who I thought had said some interesting things. Sorry for the hassle.

I only found the "notable" requirement by digging through several pages here and on WP. Perhaps it should be made clearer. Darguz Parsilvan 18:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, that's fine; I have them all in my personal quotes file anyway. Thanks for the offer. Darguz Parsilvan 17:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but are you on crack? You refer to my cleanup of the emacs article as a test and experiment, then say it's been reverted and tell me to leave articles alone and mess with the sandbox. Did you get high prior to doing so? Not only did you in the end not revert the article, but my contributions were positive ones which conformed to the regulations of this site. 65.95.228.253 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. First of all, allow me to ask you to take a less controversial tone. The article was vandalised several times by people who thought leaving just one quote from "vi" was a good idea, and sending you the "test" message was probably a mistake. There is a reason for assume good faith, and this is it :)

More to the point, the article is pretty much a mess, and in no version thereof actually conformed to the regulations of the site, strictly speaking. It has quotes by people with no established notability, it does not conform to the standard theme-page formatting. To make a note of all these issues, I've added a "cleanup" notice, which will hopefully cause some improvement. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Tones are irrelevant. Regardless of what has happened in the past, instantly assuming someone that formats an article to match the others of the site is a vandal was rediculous on your part. The article was pretty much two lines, hardly a mess. Just because you do not find the person being quoted notorious enough does not make their quote somehow less insightful or known, Thomer's is reasonably well known in Unix circles. 65.95.228.253 07:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, UDSCott. Thanks for adding the wp box to Stephen Hawking. By convention, addition of the wp box comes with an addition of an "external links" header. I realize it may seem silly to add the whole header just for the wp box, but it does look better that way, and promotes more visual consistency. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

• No problem. I wasn't sure if you wanted a new section just for that link, but I'll be sure to include it next time. UDScott 14:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's an unusual choice (but I'm willing to live with it). What's odd is that the next line down has 'cool.' with the period inside the quote. Is there a reason for the inconsistency? --Laefer 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, the next line is a mistake. It's not as unusual as you might think -- it's called "logical quoting", and has gained a lot of ground in the last 10 years, especially outside the united states. Sorry, BTW, about reverting your Dead Cat change: that was a good change, and my mistakes. We all make mistakes sometimes, and I appreciate you being good humoured about mine. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Liza shaltunЛиза Шалтун на работе 46.56.218.66 06:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your compliments regarding my sourcing a Jesse Jackson quote (I realze that it was over about 3 months ago, but I only recently logged into my account here again). What is really meant here by "attributed"? Does this mean that the quote lacks a source, or that the quote is disputed? Or perhaps both? For example, I believe I saw that the "We must destroy the village to save the village" quote is listed as "attributed" because while its source is known it is apparently disputed whether anyone actually said it. Theshibboleth 05:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you tell me what needs to be cleaned up? I can't see how it differs from the template you pointed me towards. Regards, --bodnotbod 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have added explanation to Talk:Rachel Whiteread (usually, I prefer to leave the detailed explanation of issues on the talk page of the article: as long as I'm writing it, might as well might make it accessible to all potential editors of this page). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The misattributed quote that you mention as lacking sources was added by someone on September 4, 2005. Since I've been working recently on the Voltaire quotes, I'll wait a bit to see if the person who added that text will respond to your note on the discussion page; if not, I'll look into it myself. Best wishes, InvisibleSun 13:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Moshe

Further to your great suggestion at the Village Pump, have you managed to create a staging area to harness the thousands of feeds at quotationsbook.com?

Cheers Amit

Hi, UDScott. I wondered if you care to take a look at Wikiquote:Guide to layout/Draft, especially at the films section (but your comments on any part of it would be welcome). Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Moshe: I entered a comment on the talk page of the guide.UDScott 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't respond to your query about Zalman Stern quotes last month. As you've no doubt noticed, I've been practically absent on WQ for a while, and I'm not sure when I'll be participating regularly again. (I'm trying to work on my backlog, but it's proceeding at a snail's pace.)

Anyway, Stern is one of those semi-notable people that makes for hard judgment calls. He is published, but only in a few comp-sci journals, and I don't think they're the source of his quotes. The quotes themselves, I believe, are unsourced and possibly unsourceable. I'm afraid I contributed to the Computers mess by moving the quotes there, although I think Stern is far more qualified for a presence in "Attributed" than most of the other quotes there. Were I working actively on "Computers", I'd be inclined to leave him there for others to source him, but I wouldn't object to his removal, either. Moving suspect quotes to the Talk page sounds like a good idea in general, although it may need to be used selectively for "Computers", given the quantity of suspect quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the greeting. -- Chupon 07:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was the one trying to safe the quotes. That other user was deleting them. The translations were refrased and still he wanted them to be deleted. I gave in in the end. You changed all to the wrong version! You just helped a vandal! I now changed it back to the version with all quotes. Please read carefully before reverting. 213.148.229.209 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You should have read the full history to know what was going on. 213.148.229.209 15:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've made some changes to the version last reverted by you. Your version was the basis. I've taken very little steps so you wouldn't get confused. I'm sure all can agree upon these little changes. No quotes were deleted compared to your last version (except for an exact doublure). Please wait and see if others can agree with these changes. I've been VERY clear about my reasons for making them. Please read them carefully and think how reasonable they are. 213.84.117.22 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Great work reverting vandalism! I just wanted to nit-pick a little, if I may, that by convention, when adding the   Thanks for experimenting with Wikiquote. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Wikiquote:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. template (or any other talk-page template, really), one should still sign it. The template's goal is to use a well-crafted message, but it is still a specific user (you) that talks to another user. In addition, this lets the user complain to someone specific if, indeed, the template was unfair. I am sorry to be constantly nit-picking at you, I do appreciate the hard work you put into Wikiquote. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• No worries -- I'd much rather do things correctly than get upset at the corrections you've provided me. Believe me I'm not offended at all. I'll add my signature next time. Thanks. UDScott 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Start a Wikiquote page for All Star Batman and Robin. I can't !--Brown Shoes22 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, UDScott! Allow me to congratulate you on (what I believe is?) your first deletion. As usual, I have a few very minor comments:

• When speedy deletion, the comment, by convention, starts with "SD: reason". The rationale is that Speedy Deletion cases are very specific, so the admin must specify which criterion this falls under. As a hint, over 95% of the cases are "SD: spam", "SD: patent nonsense" or "SD: no useful content".
• When deleting spam, it's highly advisable to block the spammer (for somewhere between 3 and 7 days in the case of an anon, or indefinitely if it's a username). If you saw the new article via recent changes, there's a "block" link available to you. If not, the page's history (before you delete it) has a link to the user's talk page, and a user's talk page has a "Block user" link in the toolbox (on the leftmost column). It took me forever to discover all these links, and I'm trying to save you the trouble :)

Thanks again for joining the administration team ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I also wanted to ask you a question: I had an idea of creating W/index.php as a redirect to Bad title and protecting it, since it gets significant spam. What do you think? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • Thanks for the hints Moshe (your help is always appreciated!) I actually was going to block that particular user, but I had already deleted the page and I didn't see a way to block him after the page was gone. I was able to get to the user's talk page, but I thought it was a little weak to add a test comment. I didn't notice the link you mention on his talk page. Next time, I'll make sure I do things in the right order. Thanks again -- and yes, it was my first delete. I think the redirect is a good idea -- when I looked at the history, it definitely appeared to be a target for abuse. UDScott 19:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you ever again need to block users and don't have a block link ready, you can always use Special:Blockip. This and other goodies are available on [[1]], which is in many admin's bookmarks (yeah, I wanted to tell you about it when you made admin, but it naturally slipped my mind). Wikipedia has an organized procedure, with a reading list and everything, but we do things by word of mouth still :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. That brings a new thought to my mind -- should there be some sort of welcome package for new admins? In other words, some of these helpful hints that you've sent me -- could there be a page for new admins that would act as a quick primer on how and what to do? I know there's information out there, but maybe something that ties it all together would be good (this shortcuts page is a good start). Just thinking about the next new admin to come along. UDScott 20:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You figured me out :) My hidden agenda at dumping all this information on you was, obviously, to cause you to write such a page...But seriously, yes, such a page would be useful. If you want more hints, you could check out the archives of my talk page, which are full of Jeff instructing me when I screwed up badly enough. Collecting those tips would be incredibly useful! Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You removed some changes I had made to an article, thinking that they were by mistake. What I was doing was removing quotes that were repeated. Including a quote about terrorists right before I was about to remove a repeated quote about Canada. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi, Jeff. I saw your recent comment to UDScott, and it reminded me of a project I keep putting off: stealing your admin shortcuts page, putting them somewhere in WQ: namespace (so it will be ok for everyone to edit) and calling them something more..."neutral" (maybe "Useful shortcuts"), since nearly all of them are helpful to a user which is involved in the community and the process here without being an admin (currently there are very few of those since we recruit heavily, but a man can dream). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea. After UDScott's question, perhaps we could even add a usage subpage (à la Firefly (TV series)/Format) that would describe what each does and how to use it. (Or maybe even add a <span title> tag to include hover text so the information pops up, like in the MST3K TOC!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message! I've worked a lot in hungarian wiki and I turned to Wikiquote because I needed some rest, we had two terrible editor, and had to block them for life. And I fell in love with that project. :) Now I'm going to become admin in a few days in hun Wikiquote and now trying to add iw to all of our collections. If u need anything from me, write me anytime. Thanks again. NCurse 17:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, UDScott. Nice work on making the Charmed page look like a real quote page. Please note, however, that your first edit[2] removed a quote from Season 3. I have re-added that quote, with proper attribution and episode number. If you find quotes which you find dubious, it is usually a bad idea to remove them outright -- one thing you can do is put them under "unknown episode/unknown character". Alternatively, you can move them to the talk page. Thanks a lot, and also thanks for adding quotes to the QOTD list (I was beginning to feel like nobody else cares). 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, I wasn't even aware that was a proper quote from the show -- I thought it was just nonsense. Thanks for fixing it. I was just trying to quickly make it a viable page. Also, I'll try to add even more to the QOTD list -- I enjoy finding those, but I hadn't gotten to that page yet. There's still so much to do! :-) UDScott 20:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, don't I feel like a geek for remembering most of Charmed well enough to accurately remember which episode and season this quote was from :) In any case, this is why I recommended moving dubious quotes to talk -- none of us are perfect, some day I might even find a quote from Buffy I don't recognize :) Speaking of stuff to do, I've begun working on the six million dollar version of Jeff's shortcuts page in User:MosheZadka/Useful shortcuts. Additions and comments are welcome! I plan to move it soon to the Wikiquote: namespace. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Can you help my pages get expanded thanks!

I'm not clear on why you added the cleanup tag to Lexx. The article is certainly in need of quotes from other characters, and could use some dialog, which is why I added the stub tag, but these are not formatting issues. Could you post a note on its talk page to explain? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your question! I added a note to the talk page. Please remove the cleanup tag if you disagree with my reasoning there. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Don't bother waiting for me to move my picture to Commons before you start your image VFD. Your crusade may finally get me to take some action on this. Go for it! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome. I appreciate being noticed.

ElephantForgets 15:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

See, I'm already using what you taught me!

redirecting Latino Heat Eddie Guerrero to Eddie Guerrero? Sound good? moshe 130.111.98.244 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I might post a revised image to the commons in the next week or two, and replace the one I have used, so the one you mentioned can be deleted here. The older image will still remain in the Wikipedia and WIkimedia files. ~ Kalki 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What an interesting coincidence it was to find Lincoln's quote posted as QotD as I was reading Robert Heinlein's recently published first work, For Us, the Living. Thanks for nominating this! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Even I like to take a rest, now and again, from my cynicism and nominate an actually inspiring quotation :) I haven't read Henlein in a while. If when you finish it, you think it's good, please let me know. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not too keen on it as a novel, as it's even more dialectical and expository than than the preachiest of his works. But as Spider Robinson points out in the forward, it reads more like an outline of Heinlein's ideas for his future works than a polished novel. I think the way to read it is as an interesting view into Heinlein's imagination than as the usual roller-coaster ride through quirkiness that his real novels are. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Jeff. I saw your closure of the T:W vote, which was probably justified. I think I will nominate again for VfD in two months, if it is completely unused by then. Please let me know if you think this is wrong. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, I find myself wishing I'd been able to delete the darned template just to get it out of the way. I didn't really examine your "rant" closely before the vote expired because (A) I didn't feel like learning all the implications of wiki portals, especially when the editor didn't comment, and (B) I've been distracted by so much outside WQ. I don't recall offhand if we even have a guideline on renomination, but I have no objection to 2 months on this issue (unless I'm forgetting some policy issue). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking an interest in helping to create a better formatting syntax. Ideas and formatting guidlines can be posted in Talk:Ctrl_Alt_Del_(webcomic)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I implemented the change on "A" only in the interest of being bold but didn't want to waste my time (by implementing it for all letters) if there was some reason such a shortcut had been rejected. Maybe wikiquote is different, but on most of the non-wikipedia sites - I have generally taken the tactic of implement example of the proposal and then discuss - since there are few that read and monitor the talk pages. I am going to go ahead and restore the use of "A" only and leave a comment on the talk page to that effect. Of course if you revert I will leave it alone. I think that this is justified since (this being a wiki) because it: 1) doesn't degrade the quality of the work, 2) provides a more visible example for discussion, and 3) will only remain partial for a realtively short amount of time. Additionally, what is wrong with a partial implementation? ;) Have a good day! Trodel 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Moshe

Ref - the entry above - Staging Area/Feeds. I am aware you've been away from Wikiquote for a bit. Any ETA on when you will create the auto-stub area? My RSS feeds on quotationsbook.com are up and ready.

Cheers Amit

Should Quote sections be removed or proposed for removal from Wikipedia articles once a related article is created on Wikiquote?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anti-copyright

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

• http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patent

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patent

Ncrfgs 08:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

That kind of things should be discussed on wikipedia, not wikiquote :)

Specifically, the editors of the page might decide to retain all quotations, remove all quotations or remove some of the quotations and leave only a small sample (a popular decision). As far as I know, wikipedia has no policy regarding that, so it is best brought up on the articles' talk pages. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for leaving me a note on the Talk page. I intentionally removed two wikilinks from the entry for Jaynestown because they made no sense to me. The phrase "They say the snow on the roof is too heavy" links to The Message, and "Well, except the hero of Canton" links to Ariel. How come?

Moshe - You're right about having a standard format for comics. I was loathe to even step into this since there's always so much material and it can often be presented in a non-conventional way. I can't imagine trying to reign in some of the pages out there. When you add in webcomics into the traditional paper ones, it can get even harder to define. I just happened to be running down the list of most recent changes and jumped into that page. When I was asked to explain my cleanup tag, I tried to do so, adhering to the traditional literature guidelines. But as you suggest, perhaps this isn't the best approach. Maybe we do need something entirely different. But I'm not sure that I have the knowledge of comics to do so (I used to be an avid reader, but alas no more). Well, add it to the list of things that would be nice to have here. :-) UDScott 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi MosheZadka. Thanks for the welcome message. Yes, Perhaps I use the wrong template. I put {{vfd}} to inform sysop that the article is spam. We in .id don't have deletion voting mechanism. Borgx 09:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Moshe. I don't know if you are the one who put up the "please edit" tage on the Azumanga Daioh WikiQuote article. However, I am not entirely sure what is required and could use some more specific guidance. Michael Hopcroft 21:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You gave no indication if you read the explanation and did not understand, or if you were not aware of it at all. In any case, I will expand the explanation there. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

[Please stop adding nonsense to Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)]

why don't you take a look at what i've done or the talk page? humor isn't vandalism, asshole. not an experiment in the least. it's frustrating this type of hypocrisy goes on at an open information project like wikiquote.

Please note that it is not considered proper to engage at personal attacks on Wikiquote. Thanks in advance. If you do not want your edits to be mistaken for vandalism, please use more accurate edit summaries: the edit summary of the summary I reverted was "i'm pretty much liek a to'l pro at ownin wikiquote nstuff rite". A better edit summary might have been "Sorted quotations according to character. All quotations kept, though some have been capitalized properly." Thanks for your co-operation ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

my apologies. while i concede that the edit summary ignored etiquette in hopes of some personality and humor, i was a bit upset that someone could trigger happily revert without looking at the content first.

Moshe, do you know how the VFD page was changed (check out the abortion section). I can't figure out who did it or when it was done. This page (along with the Definitions of anarchism page have been tons of fun lately, huh? Any thoughts? UDScott 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Never mind! I didn't realize there was a new entry -- I thought I was looking at the original entry and thought the whole discussion had been removed, but I couldn't find it in the history. I saw it finally thouigh. UDScott 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Didn't see you were editing last night, so I accidentally reverted your changes while I was editing. Just so you know I wasn't being a jerk. (I guess unlike Wikipedia, Wikiquote doesn't warn you when two people are simultaneously editing. Palm dogg 18:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Moshe - I have to thank you again for getting me into DC. As I arrived home today, I received in the mail my first DC book (Dinosaur Comics:huge eyes, beaks, intelligence, and ambition)! I can't seem to get ENOUGH? :-) ~ UDScott 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! And you're already learning the language, I see :) It is pretty good, and part of my insidious scheme to draw you into comics formatting debates... ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments on the village pump and other pages. I know how to sign, just forgot when I made that topic. Is there a way to have that automatically add? I'm used to forums that add a signature by default. -- Chupon 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nope. But you'll get so used to adding it, your forum posts will soon end with "~~~~" :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Moshe, no problem. I'll be glad to try my first closings of votes. I shouldn't have any prblems doing it. By the way -- point taken on the attributed quotes. I was just trying to populate some empty pages that I had referenced on a Theme page. I'll be sure to go with sourced quotes as much as I can. ~ UDScott 13:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about using a swearing tag without checking first. To be honest I didn’t think it was that big a change. The strange thing is I’m not easily offended by swearing, here in North Wales no one can understand you if you don’t swear at least three times a sentence. Philip Stevens 13:36, 22 December 2005.

No problems -- it was easily reverted. In general, before implementing any change in a large (say more than 20) articles, it is better to ask first, or alternatively be bold in one article, and then ask about others. It's not so much a matter of a big deal as it is a pain to revert. Thank you for your understanding ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome message. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 22:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello MosheZadka,

There are two categories "Turkish P/proverbs" with different sets of proverbs. I have inserted the ones of "Turkish proverbs" into "Turkish Proverbs" following the existing format there. In principle the list "Turkish proverbs" can be deleted, but there is also something in "discussion". Can I apply to you for fixing this or what should I do? Thanks in advance! Umay

You wrote: Please note that wikiquote is not the place to debate whether quotations make sense or not -- only if they are accurate and properly attribute. If you want to debate content, there are many forums on the internet where you can do so. Because of this, I have removed your remarks from Talk:Dan Quayle. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to my post where I wrote: Folks quote this one pejoratively, but I believe it is a perfectly logical, well spoken statement.

"I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame."

He's talking about an almost lost concept called "Personal responsibility"!

--TecBrat 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was careful to post this, not in the article, but in the discussion section. Discussion, by definition, is where members discuss, or talk about, an issue. The fact that the entire article is pejorative quotes from the undeniably poor public speaker, Mr. Quayle, invites reaction when one of the quotes is well spoken. I will un-delete my post.

--TecBrat 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

PHP MySQL

Hi Moshe,

Reference above talk title where we first talked about a staging area using the RSS feeds at quotationsbook (at the Village Pump). I did some reading that you were busy ;) Any chance you managed to implement this?

Kind regards Amit

Hey, Moshe, are you out there still? I just noticed that your contributions seemed to have ceased on 27 December 2005. (It wasn't obvious to me before because (A) I've been offline a good bit myself from the computer problems, and (B) you're already so involved in so many existing conversations that it's not immediately apparent when you stop.) I hope everything is going okay for you. Drop me a line if you get a chance. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to hear there are good and fun things taking you away from WQ, not disasters! Get plenty of sleep — you're overdue for a well-deserved break here anyway. BTW, did I glean correctly from my slightly worried scan of your other Web presences that you're playing Dr. Scott in a theater performance of Rocky Horror Picture Show? That must be an absolute blast! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you corrected the punctuation of the quote from Marjaneh Bakhtiari's novel Kalla det vad fan du vill. Did you verify that correction with the source? IIRC the quote I added (as 213.112.223.14) was canonical. Wikiquote:Manual of style says that "In almost all cases, a quotation from a written source should follow the punctuation of the original". --Blenda 11:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggested to UDScott that we should prefer to strike anonymous, unsigned VfD votes because they're unsigned, not because they're anonymous, as he recently did for "Fit Finlay" and "The Boogeyman". He pointed out that he was following your lead from the "Denis Leary" vote, which is a vote I'd missed while I was trying to build a new computer. So I thought I'd bring this up with you as well.

I'm not really comfortable with anon-vote striking yet, but I suspect at least you and Aphaia are, and I don't know where the other sysops stand. We don't have a formal policy on this yet (only a draft in Wikiquote:Voting), and I think Wikipedia's practice is less a matter of striking anon votes as it is giving them little or no weight. (Wikiquote, I believe, has been more direct than Wikipedia about votes, as Uncle G pointed out to me in a conversation a few months ago.)

My rationale for the emphasis on unsigned striking is this:

1. Anon voters rarely sign their votes.
2. WQ:VFD has a well-established policy of not accepting unsigned votes.
3. Anon voters nearly always fail to heed advice to sign votes after their initial ones are struck, avoiding the question of whether should count them if they were signed. (This is obviously not a good strategy for the long term.) One notable exception was the Veronica Mars vote, as you no doubt remember. ☺ But of course that turned out well for everyone.
4. Striking anon votes without a formal policy leaves us vulnerable to accusations of POV.

What's most annoying is that these votes are almost always in situations where the nominated articles clearly violate formal inclusion guidelines (e.g., vanity articles), and the supporters almost never even try to provide evidence to contradict the nomination. They should be open-and-shut cases, so I'm anxious to avoid any appearance of sysop overreaching, especially when there are so many of these delete-bait articles being created.

I imagine we're moving toward a more WP-like dismissal of anon votes, but I'd like to see the practice wait until we have a formal policy, if possible. Anyway, thanks for listening to another one of my rants. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi-- I see you've warned Mr. Grace about policy violations before, and I received no response to my post about this on Village pump. Essentially, the user is unilaterally reverting many changes: he reverted an attempt to reorganize the page in a more NPOV way, without discussing it on the talk page, and then insisted that the existing organization of the page was "the result of consensus" (when there was no such consensus) [3]; removed a pro-choice quotation for being from a "non-notable" person [4]; and insists on including POV commentary about quotations [5]. Without definite policies on Wikiquote about this kind of behavior, it's hard for me to know what should be done, but it seems that in the absence of formal policies, then I'm forced to either get into an edit war with him or ignore the article and let him do what he wants with it, neither of which is desirable. Any suggestions? Thanks, Catamorphism 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moshe,

I got your old message (I searched for my name on thr Internet and found it), where you said: "Hi, Gordon. None of your personal images have copyright tags. I would appreciate it if you uploaded those pictures to commons under a suitable free license if you want to use them here. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)"

Sorry I was slow to act, but I fixed it for all three images. Thank you for the heads up. I am busy in other areas, and became less active in Wikiquote. Thx again.

--GordonWattsDotCom 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moshe, I've gathered that you've been on an extended wikibreak with your various other activities. But I wanted to post you a specific note about my intention to wrap up a new speedy-deletion policy, using Wikiquote:Speedy deletions/Draft as the new policy and discussion at Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions (the original policy's talk page, so a transfer of the draft material will preserve the history of the original policy). Since you had some specific ideas, I wanted you to have a chance to comment and/or update the draft before I call for approval. I hope things are going well in your other endeavors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd be better off if I didn't, because it would just leave a obtrusive red link. Just note that I am "Kinneyboy90" at the English Wikipedia. Thank you. 24.171.104.184

Sorry, I was mistaken. You didn't leave a note on my talk page, that was someone else. Sorry to bother you. 24.171.104.184 16:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for encouraging me clean up his stub.

Better?

Thanks, Shoan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoanoak (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm not doing this right, I'm new, but I wanted to say that most Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian proverbs are virtually the same and there isn't really a good indicator of 'who found them first' since it was all one country before.

Just wanted to clear that up. (if I didn't do this right, please delete it, though i have no idea how else I should come into contact with ya) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxstate (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in here. MosheZadka has been offline for quite a while, so allow me to comment. Wikiquote's proverb articles are a terrible mess, and are not likely to be improved significantly in the foreseeable future. We try to source all quotes, but the nature of proverbs makes this a bit more difficult. The logical way to do this is to find a book that specifically quotes proverbs and cite it as a source. This will rarely address the true origin of a proverb, but at least it provides a reliable source for it being a proverb. This is in contrast to sentiments that merely sound profound (or that their creators think are profound), but aren't really known as proverbs. Until more serious effort is put into cleaning up proverb articles, sourcing them from a publication, thereby giving Wikiquotians at least a starting point for verifying them as proverbs, is probably the best we can hope for. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

With reluctance, I've marked you as inactive at WQ:ADMIN so folks won't keep trying to contact you about stuff here. Not to get maudlin ☺, but I miss your energetic and thoughtful work here. I hope all is going well with you in the real world. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The EGS article, as of Feb. 25, is finished construction. All quotes have been referenced, and divided by number of people speaking, subdivided by character and subsubdivided by year. Is it good enough to warrant removal of the cleanup banner?

Hi, MosheZadka, welcome back to English Wikiquote.

During your absence, Wikiquote:Requests for adminship was updated and all active sysops are requested to provide an email address to the community either through wikimail or on their talk (as you may know, now we need to activate and confirm our address before using Wikimail function.

The new rule says:

In principle, administrators should register a valid email address and allow other users to send them messages in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page. For active sysops, as well sysop candidates, it is mandatory. Inactive sysops and guest sysops are recommended to put their wikimail addresson their talk pages. If they are back and become active again, they are expected to activate their mail preferences.

Since we have no way to mail you, I put this message on your talk. Would you please consider the requirement above, and give us an oppoturnity to mail you?

Thanks! --Aphaia 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome home :) --Aphaia 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are several changes around sysop tools you would like to know, as well as "mail reachabily requirements" including:

• A trial of new deletion system WQ:PROD
• Revised speedy criteria
• Blocking policy, now official

Recently one of our biggest concerns about fair use. For this matter, perhaps w:WP:NONFREE would be the most informative document. I'm sure you feel again familiar around very soon. :)

Again, welcome! --Aphaia 12:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a short welcome back greeting from me as well. It was a pleasant surprise to see you active again after so long an absence. ~ Kalki 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Moshe, hope all is well. I've missed talking with you, as you and Jeff were quite instrumental in my development here in my early days on WQ (as well as GETTING me into Dinosaur Comics!). Welcome back! ~ UDScott 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I, too, wanted to welcome you back publically (in addition to our earlier email exchange). I'm glad to hear things are going well for you, and hope you can once again find time in your busy schedule to help us out in the many ways you've done in the past.

Could I ask a small favor? Could you use the dated signature/timestamp (four instead of three tildes) when you post to talk pages? We've gotten some long, intense discussions since you've been gone, and those timestamps can be invaluable to keeping track of things. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi man, just saying hello here. Oh yeah, could you take a look at the three Mission Impossible and give me some suggestions on them? Coz I've been working on them for quite a while but there still seems to be something missing, cheers. M Carson 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Crash Bandicoot, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Aphaia 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for creating this page. I have cleaned it up and added sourced quotes. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply