Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 19

< Wikipedia:Motto of the day‎ | Nominations
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

The fish that nibbles at every bait will be caught.

Edit 1 per, you guessed it, Adagio News Day. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support - the link to WP:WARN makes sense, and I 100% agree with the second link. After all, true elegance shows itself in universal politeness and basic human civility towards everyone. It sets a good example, in short. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Per my and La Pianista's above. Aren't we cute when we agree? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Never cuter. Wonder what a Nutiketista looks like... —La Pianista Speak · Hear 03:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose! Eagles, fishes,... we all are animals... I've to agree (^__^). Seriously, it's a good phrase, but I don't like the links. How about: The fishes (vandals) that nibble (abuse) at every bait (vandalism or, as an alternative, Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages) will be caught (administrator intervention against vandalism)??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I would be opposed to that motto; the vandalism reference is trite. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 29, 2009. Queenie 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm lovin it

I don't know whether to use → or →. Simply south (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Conditional Weak Support: Per your edit summary, a little bland, if it was changed to I'm lovin it that would gain my weak support. Also, I think → SpitfireTally-ho! 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (EDIT CONFLICT) I don't really like the motto- crass comercialism is something to be avoided usually, especially tired fast food slogans. Additionally, the link doesn't fit. Either Spitfire's suggested links or South's suggested revision would result in my upgrading to Weak Oppose. Additionally, I think the McDonald's link would be more appropriate than the Timberlake one for attribution purposes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The original suggestion was meaning that people enjoy editing Wikipedia. Simply south (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of edit 2. Queenie 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

→ I'm Lovin It

Edit one Per Simply south. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of edit 2. Queenie 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Well, don't just sit there, girl

edit 2. Complete change of direction and a line that is often repeated in the song. And i am not doing this for commercialism. Simply south (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - for a Largo News Day. Meaning, slowly as possible. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 03:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually it means oversized, so you mean wait until there are too many mottos??? That doesn't quite seem right. Simply south (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Well, the comercialism is gone, but I still think it's a weak quote. Save it for a slow news day. Additionally, I have taken the liberty of adding a space between the arrow and the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per weak consensus for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 28, 2009. Queenie 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Forward, Upward, Onward Together.

I'm on the wall with this one. Maybe some consensus on the links will help. BW21.--BlackWatch21 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support: Although I must agree that the linking could be better, I can't think of anything else, a bit simple a motto too maybe, but the link for Together wins me: as noramally people might link that to Wikipedia:Community. But I like the link to Consensus more SpitfireTally-ho! 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Actually, I'm fine with all three links. The motto is simple, but simplicity is not necessarily a bad thing (some might even say many of us have been clamoring for it recently). I agree with Spitfire that the third link is especially appropriate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! It's good as it is. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in to jet engines.

Cautiously trying my hand at a little humour, although I like to tell myself it displays a very deep message. More then ever feel free to oppose this one. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't like the imagery of vandals as eagles and constructive editors as weasels. Incidentally, I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of "weasel." Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Same thoughts as our motto lord. The eagle is usually seen as a creature of strength and majesty, while the weasel is as a treacherous one and... well, a weasel. Ooh.. big words There is also the fact that Wikipedians don't like weasels :) Chamal talk 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think what you mean to say is "It is claimed that some people say that many Wikipedians have suggested that, argueably, Weasels may be generally considered to have been shown by studies to be in some manner thought to be detrimental to what is believed to be an otherwise important project to some." Something like that?  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Ooh, how about "Eagles soar, but weasels are sucked into lawnmowers" instead? Or too morbid? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Sure, although, uh, I'd change the link for weasels to WP:VANDAL? Eye brows raised at where it currently links, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk)

→ Eagles soar, but weasels get sucked into lawnmowers

Edit 1 Linking to The Office, where I first heard the original. Also correcting Nutiket's smudge in otherwise perfect perfection (won't he be happy at hearing that), in his linking to WikiProject Weasels instead of WP:WEASEL (upon further thought changing that to WP:VAND, since weasel words don't merit a block per se). —La Pianista Speak · Hear 04:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Shocked Support - Wow, you guys really ran with this suggestion. I thought I was just kidding. The link corrections are definitely an improvement, La Pianista. And yes, I am happy whenever someone acknowledges my (nearly) perfect perfection.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea, humourous. ~AH1(TCU) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! This is better!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Link Eagles to WP:FA? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No, the quote isn't talking about articles, it's talking about editors. A link to WP:FA would be non-sensical. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


→ No grain of sand is small in the mechanism of a watch.

Ahh, the nice simple ones, as always, feel free to oppose, I don't mind SpitfireTally-ho! 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Encouraging idea. ~AH1(TCU) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Borderline between weak and normal support - I like the message, and the links are fine, but the quote is a little... wierd. Are grains of sand often used in watchmaking? Do we have any watchmakers in the room? Or at least a watch repairman? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like the links, but the quote itself is a bit   –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It has tremendous potential, but I don't see how grains of sand equates with watch-making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Pianista (talk • contribs)
    • Hesitant Suggestion - Maybe "gear" or something like that instead of "grain of sand," though normally I am not cool with changing an actual quotation... Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think that by watch he may have meant what we know as "hour glass"? SpitfireTally-ho! 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I doubt it. They did have watches during his time, and I don't think they used sand. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply: I think that it means that if even a teeny grain of sand gets into a watch, it upsets the whole balance. I had that experience.. -_- Queenie 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Reply - If that is the intended meaning of the quote, then the link is definitely inappropriate, as it would imply that editors can frak up the whole watch. Well, I mean, they CAN, but that's not a message we want to send... Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Comment: Didn't realise that (or did I?). I agree with what you say on it anyway. Should probably remove it... SpitfireTally-ho! 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Reply - Well, if that IS the intended interpretation (which, I'm not 100% sure it is), there's still no need to remove the entire quote. Just to change that link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! So "puritan" and "holy" (^__^). This quote is about sin: "No sin is small. —It is against an infinite God, and may have consequences immeasurable.— No grain of sand is small in the mechanism of a watch." As Spitfire correctly said, watch is referred to a hourglass (sand clock). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case, I change my opinion to strong oppose; we shuold not be sending such a negative message. I can't think of better links off the top of my head, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • weak support --88wolfmaster (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How about changing the first link to WP:WAR or WP:DISRUPT? — Jake Wartenberg 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

→ No grain of sand is small in the mechanism of a watch.

Edit 1, per Jake Wartenberg.

  • Support - I think this sends a more appropriate message than the other version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: well, correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not say that disruptive editing can easily unbalance wikipedia? SpitfireTally-ho! 12:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Yes, it does, which I think is a better message than saying that any editors will do so. It reminds us to be vigilant against disruptive editing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I like this one. — Jake Wartenberg 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with modified links. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

→ In false community, members ultimately rely on power rather then love in dealing with hard decisions. In true community the whole remains person-conscious.

Another longer one, I'm happier with the links here, although feel free to disagree! By the way, this is qouted from David Augsburger, only wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, so in this case how do I reflect this in the motto? Hah, guess I won't need to if this never gets through but still, any help is appreciated. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Good idea because it shows that having a little AGF is better than blocking a user outright when the decision is difficult. ~AH1(TCU) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: ah well, I made a page on him, just have to hope it doesn't get deleted >.< SpitfireTally-ho! 09:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the motto, the message and the links. It does seem likely that that page will get deleted on notability grounds as soon as one of the content burglars notices it; if that happens, I would suggest turning the page into a redirect to the appropriate section of either List of Fuller Theological Seminary people or Claremont School of Theology. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It's okay, but there are some issues with the links. For example, the ability to block != power. Also, I'm not too keen on the link to "hard decisions". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Given its context in the quote (that people should choose to rely on love instead of power), I think linking power with blocking is appropriate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! Spitfire, I don't know him very well, but I think that his book The Freedom of Forgiveness must be included in the Bibliography section. Also, add {{talkheader}} and {{WPBiography}} to the article's talk page.   Done 09:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I've also added the template {{Persondata}} to the article, but it's empty. Do you know his date and place of birth? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unrelated comment: Thanks Pjoef, I added The Freedom of Forgiveness, however, I do not know his date nor place of birth and none of the sources seem to provide it, but if I come across it I'll remember to add it, regards SpitfireTally-ho! 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno
“One for all, all for one”

I don't know if it has been used yet, but it is here if necessary. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support It's a good motto here on the Latin English Wikipedia. The links are a little uninspired, but I can't think of a better set. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Highlights the mechanisms of Wikipedia, but the first link may be a bit hard to understand at first. ~AH1(TCU) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: I agree with AstroHurricane here: I think it reflects some of the workings of wikipedia very nicely, but is a little hard to understand SpitfireTally-ho! 11:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling this is FUI. On a related note, please see thee nominations talk page. Simply south (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to be sorry. I admit my guilt. I searched for the Latin phrase but not for the English translation /o\. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Normally, I would oppose a reused motto. However, since this is the latin version instead of the english version, I think it can squeak by just this once. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point, Nutiket. I think this can be passed. Queenie 12:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus *sigh*. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Look before you leap.

This is a commonly used phrase which I'm sure must have been used here before. Any suggestions for better links? Wikiert T S C 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support: I like it, whilst being bold is good, it also does no harm to be a little discreet, which this motto encourages, the motto is maybe a little simple, but thats not necessarily a bad thing SpitfireTally-ho! 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be okay, it hasn't been used for 2 years. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Look before you leap.

Edit 1, as suggested by La Pianista above. Wikiert T S C 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: Same reason as above basically, but I like this one more as it aplies more to the kind of people who read the motto of the day SpitfireTally-ho! 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Both are good, but I prefer this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I always like linking to a less well known Wikiproject. My support is conditional on this motto not having been used already. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This motto was used 2 years ago, however as it has been so long i think it should be okay. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support both versions, though I prefer this one. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 22, 2009. Queenie 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

→ You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

--88wolfmaster (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Sure you can; it's just not very effective.  :-) In seriousness, the quote is good and so is the message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like how it discourages that edit war mentality. Goodface87 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree with goodface, and Juliancolton, of course SpitfireTally-ho! 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 21, 2009. Queenie 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

→ That's not gone well!

I have a feeling this'll be shot down at once, but I'll have a go anyway. Queenie 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - The quote is good, but the page it links too isn't very good in my opinion. What about linking it to WP:MISTAKES or WP:ERROR? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Done I think WP:ERROR fits better. Thanks. Queenie 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Groovy. Change my opinion to Support then. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Cut out the poetry, Watson.

From The Adventure of the Retired Colourman. Bland? Chamal talk 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 19, 2009. Queenie 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

→ More than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. You can help!

Taken from Wikipedia:About. This page is running dry again, so I added two mottos this Monday, and I hope they are good enough. Have a wonderful week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's not bad, and inspirational in its way. I'm just not sure I can get 100% behind a motto that is essentially a list of stastics. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Agreed 100% with Nutiketaiel. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support per above. If there were a way to convey this more cleverly, I would strengthen my support. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Well, it's not really a motto See 'ketail's comment... Icy // ♫ 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I agree with Nutiketaiel on this, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

→ You and I, Watson, we have done our part. Shall the world, then, be overrun by oysters? No, no; horrible!

This one's from Sherlock Holmes in The Dying Detective. Better links, anyone? Chamal talk 04:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Life lies before you like fresh fallen snow. Be careful where you walk, for every step will show.

Hmm, another SpitfireTally-ho! 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - That's not bad. A little more introspective than our usual fare. I like it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea, I've just added a period at the end. ~AH1(TCU) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - good one. It forced me to think, which is rare, since I normally think on my own accord. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 17, 2009. Queenie 14:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

→ I'll be back.

Not the most interesting one, I guess. Chamal talk 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It IS bland, but everybody's been clamoring for short mottos lately, so it kind of fits what we're looking for, and it is good to remind people of the health sustaining benefits of the Wikibreak... Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Everyone is not clamoring. And yes, this motto is a bit meh. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Apologetic Statement - Sorry, I didn't mean to be so sweeping in my assumptions. I'll rephrase (changes italicized). "...but many individuals[weasel words], such as La Pianista[1], have been clamoring for short mottos lately..." Does that work better, my dear?[original research?]  :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • A) I am not "many individuals." Weaseling, indeed. Unless, of course, your admiration for me is so great that you have cloned my being to provide you with those attractive women to feed you grapes. B) The diff you provide is not appropriate for "clamoring." There is a certain giving of hints peculiar to our gender, which comes across as much more elegant and apropos. I prefer the latter - clamoring is wholly indelicate, unbefitting of a lady such as I. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        • A) I did not say that you were "many individuals," I used you as an example of that group. The weaseling tag was directed at my own phrasing, not at you. As for cloning you... hmmm... well, cloning is complicated and expensive, and as you already have a clone sitting around that hasn't done anything since January 24th, I guess she can feed me grapes. I'll have them delivered immediately. Thanks for the suggestion. B) Clamoring was an innappropriate categorization of your actions and comments, and I apologize from the bottom of my heart. We could perhaps say instead that you were wistful for the bygone days of shorter mottos; would that be more appropriate? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I would have spent the time to concoct a valid response if it weren't for the violent fit of laughter that has overtaken my person. Now shush, you! :P —La Pianista Speak · Hear 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I left you speachless. It's OK, I often have that effect on women. I am a little surprised that you left the grapes where they are; I'm taking that decision as tacit approval of my plans for your clone.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Can't support something that might encourage users to leave the project, even if only for a short time, I know it wasn't meant to mean that, but it could be interpreted to SpitfireTally-ho! 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus and WP:SNOW. Queenie 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Prepare to cross the line.

Chamal talk 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Short, direct and to the point with a good message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Just the type of motto we need for a change of pace. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Short, sweet, and to the point. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - nice job, Chamal. Good movie too. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unsolicited and Unhelpful Movie Criticism - Meh. It was just OK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: hmmm, can't really relate being bold with crossing enemy lines, but it's ok nonetheless SpitfireTally-ho!
  • Weakest support: I like the link, but I do not like the quote and the poor quality film. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply It's about the message not the film quality. BW21.--BlackWatch21 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Extra Badgering Comment I have to agree with BW21, here. The movie is poorly made, but it's the motto's fault. SimonKSK 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, Simon. It is the motto's fault. We should beat the motto with sticks. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved and beaten with sticks for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 16, 2009. Queenie 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

→ For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,
we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken;
you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Yet another inauguration excerpt. Not too sure about this one, though. The NPA link is kinda of deep. SimonKSK 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - minor suggestion, really. What would you think of changing "advance their aims" to "advance their aims", with "advance" included in the link? I would also recommend that these longer mottoes be put further down the calendar - it's time for some short ones now. —La Pianista (T•C) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • People who are POV-pushers are not necessarily vandals. WP:POINT also is not necessarily vandalism. But the second link makes more sense I guess, though it's not perfect. So, Weak Support if link suggested by La Pianista is added, plus Nutiketaiel has a point too. Chamal talk 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - A little... melodramatic... isn't it? Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, upon further thought, per Nutiket and Chamal. A bit too "doomy." —La Pianista (T•C) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose! Uhmmm ... was he talking about mass media? I'm sorry, but I really don't like this one. IMHO, this was the worst part of his inaugural speech. peACE –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Queenie Talk 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support: Hmm, removed my Weak Oppose, seems OK on further thought SpitfireTally-ho! 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per very weak consensus for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 15, 2009. Queenie 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe the first two links should be WP:Criticisms and WP:About. SAVIOR_SELF.777 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support, of Conditional support really. the links need to be changed a little, I think. --Kfc18645 talk 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • How about → Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player. If you have a problem with referring to RfA as a "game," tell me. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I generally like the idea, but I'm not really comfortable referring to adminship as a "game". I suppose it can't hurt to try, however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • What about changing the wlink for Mistakes to point to WP:NCH (Wikipedia:New contributors' help page)??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
        • That could work, though, frankly, I think Edit 1 is better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favout of Edit 2. Queenie 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.

Edit 1 at the suggestion of La Pianista. I'm not sure about referring to adminship as a game, but we'll see what everybody else thinks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks good to me; nothing like encouraging people to "try, try again," as the old saying goes. I wasn;t that comfortable with the original link for "Mistakes" anyway. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am really not conformable with the fact that this motto calls RfA a game. SimonKSK 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Aww, c'mon, it's just a little poetic license. Besides, you shouldn't take Admins so seriously. I know I don't. Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      •   –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply - I know that admins are no big deal. It's just there are many people in Wikipedia who do. SimonKSK 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Reply - Well, if there are many people on Wikipedia who think that Admins are a big deal, all the more reason to approve this motto to help them to stop thinking of Admins as such a big deal. Like the kitty cat said. Kitty cats are wise and powerful. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose! I'm sorry, but I don't like the links used in this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 2. Queenie 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.

Edit 2 - maybe this can work. At least, if FA isn't hackneyed already. —La Pianista (T•C) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, though not as much support as for edit 1 - This version is good and the links fit. I do think Edit 1 is better, but since that seems unlikely to pass because of everyone's reverence for Admins and failure to obey the dictates of the LOLcat, I offer my support to La Pianista's alternative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened all - no consensus. Simply south is this a buffet? 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: the links are more aimed at the average editor, which is why this one gains my support over the others SpitfireTally-ho! 17:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 14, 2009. Queenie 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Even Einstein asked questions.

α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - we need links to the Wikipedia namespace. How about, "Even Einstein asked questions? SimonKSK 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't like linking "Einstein" to Wikipedians. How about we just link the whole thing to WP:ASK? Chamal talk 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Doesn't that make it sound like Einstein used the Wikipedia RefDesk?   Chamal talk 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I'm sure he would have, had it been available to him.  :-) In seriousness, I support Chamal's idea of linking the entire quote to WP:ASK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even Einstein asked questions.

Per Chamal. SimonKSK 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, per Chamal. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: good link and intriguing motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Good motto, intriguing link. (same as Pjoef but the other way round :P) SpitfireTally-ho! 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 13, 2009. Queenie 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Hi, I'm Ed Winchester!

Why do i have this feeling i have tried this? If not, a common sketch where a news reporter (not always the same person) turned up in different locations announcing this, then most times it would move onto another sketch. I am also wondering whether for the second link it could use a specials page but i have forgotten which one it is (if e1 done, log for new users). Simply south is this a buffet? 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - It looks good to me. Always nice to remind people about the welcoming committee. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: Don't know about the motto itself, but the linking is nice, and like Nutiketaiel said, a good idea to let people know about the welcoming committee, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.

Any better links? Chamal talk 13:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Not bad; the chosen link is adequate, though not great. How about WP:Talk Page, WP:TALK or WP:CONSENSUS? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Works for me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A plug to Editor review could go well here. iMatthew // talk // 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I would think that WP:PR would be better. That project needs help. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. How about WP:SPOKEN? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I like this one more then the others, I think drawing more people to the village pump is a better idea then drawing them to the spoken article project or peer review, just my opinion, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.

Edit 1 - Per Pjoef, above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - Pjoef's suggestion is perfect. A novel, clever link to a section of Wikipedia that doesn't get alot of attention. it has the added benefit of being hilarious. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - though I pray that no one has a dirty mind... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 09:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Great idea. ~AH1(TCU) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Quote works well with the link. Icy // ♫ 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 11, 2009. Queenie 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.

Edit 2 per me. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Though it pains me to do so, Pianista, I maintain my support for Pjoef's suggestion (above). The link to WP:SPOKEN directs the user to an underutilized and underrated section of the Wiki that helps make it more accessible to everyone, and I think they deserve the attention. In addition, the WP:SPOKEN link fits slightly better with the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened all - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Ambition is our idol, on whose wings
Great minds are carried only to extreme;
To be sublimely great, or to be nothing.

Thomas Southerne (1660 - May 22, 1746), The Loyal Brother, Act I, Scene i (1682) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but the last two links bother me. It implies that there are only two choices- to become a featured article, or to be deleted. Many articles are just fine hanging out at the GA level. I'm not sure I like the implication of an "all or nothing" there. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Re2Nutiketaiel: please, see Article development, How to develop an article and Evolution of an article – an example.

I thought you'd listen to my reason
But now I see you don't hear a thing
Got to make you see how it's got to be
Yes if it's all right
All or nothing yeah yeah
All or nothing
All or nothing for me
Things could work out just like I want them to
If I could have the other half of you
That's all I would if I only could
Is to say
All or nothing oh yeah
All or nothing if I could I'd say
All or nothing for me
Pa pa pa pa ta pa pa pa ta ta (x2)
I ain't telling you no lie Nutiketaiel
So don't just sit there and cry Nutiketaiel
All or nothing (oh no)
All or nothing (oh yeah)
All or nothing (gotta gotta gotta keep on tryin')
All or nothing ......
(For me, for me, for me we're not children...)
All or nothing ...... for me yeah

     Small Faces, "All or Nothing" (1966) ~ Small Faces - All Or Nothing on YT

What a powerful voice! Enjoy! Well, it is not intended to be a declaration of love, but I'm merely trying to be humorous (^__^). Probably, I have violated the rules to bring this to you, Nutiketaiel /o\. But, I think it comes under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (^__^)!!! Yours sicerely! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh. So, I love La Pianista, and Pjoef loves me. Hmph. Got any quotes from Twelfth Night in your literature bag there, Pjoef?  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - how about changing the last two to sublimely great and nothing? —La Pianista (T•C) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, but then that would repeat the "EDIAN" link. Never mind, sorry. —La Pianista (T•C) 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with Nut. There's a heck of a lot between FA and AFD. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - What about sublimely great and nothing? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Weak Support if Nutiketaiel's suggestion is implemented. It's still not the strongest message, though. Chamal talk 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Declined i favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Ambition is our idol, on whose wings
Great minds are carried only to extreme;
To be sublimely great, or to be nothing.

Edit 1- Thomas Southerne (1660 - May 22, 1746), The Loyal Brother, Act I, Scene i (1682); changed per my above suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - The last two links may not be a strong message, Chamal, but I think the first link ("Ambition is our idol") is an excellent and important one to express. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I actually like the bit at the end. / La Pianista Dolce, ma non troppo 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Slightly Weak Support: These links are better. I find the part about how Wikipedians are carried to the extreme a bit weird though. The article thingy is OK, but the red link one seems to be out of place. I just can't put my finger on it :P Chamal talk 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If life gives you lemons, you had better go get water and sugar too or your lemonade will not taste very good.

This is a slight alteration of a quote I heard from one of my co-workers. I normally wouldn't be happy with referring to Stubs as "Lemons," but I think it works in the context of the quote- namely, something that's not all that great on its own, but with water and sugar becomes something really sweet. I am not totally satisfied with the link for water, though, so I am open to suggestions on that point. It would be nice if there was a page with information on the inclusion of supporting materials in general... does anyone know a page like that? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Links for water and sugar switched per suggestion from South. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - But there is nothing here to say, really, besides that. Good motto! —La Pianista Speak · Hear 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, that's the best in a long time. And being the old man here, I mean it. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Old man"? I haven't seen you at MOTD in eons, Biblio. Casual interest does not suffice for committed experience. ;) —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would actually just switch images and WP:RS around as i think it would make more sense, just showing that images are optional and you shouldn't over do it. So If life gives you lemons, you had better go get water and sugar too or your lemonade will not taste very good. Perhaps? Simply south is this a buffet? 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Excellent suggestion; I have done so. Though, to be fair, I would not consider sugar optional when making lemonade...  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Simply excellent. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Very nice, encourages expansion of stubs so it can't go wrong really. "Life" could be linked to Category:All articles to be expanded? Not really important regarding that "lemons" links to WP:STUB, I suppose, anyway, great motto SpitfireTally-ho! 17:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. LOL, and good links. ~AH1(TCU) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Love, Live, Pray, Think, Dare

United Daughters of the Confederacy. BW21.--BlackWatch21 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Nice one. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It's OK, but as a general rule I don't like encouraging people to pray. Except to me, of course. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Reply - Slow news day??? SimonKSK 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Reply - Eh, sure, why not? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Julian and Pianista. SimonKSK 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: The links outline some of the more important things about using wikipedia, minus "pray" of course :p, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea and philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroHurricane001 (talk • contribs)

  Approved per WP:snow. Simply south (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


→ The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one.

I found the quote kind of interesting, but I'm not too sure about the links. Chamal talk 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: it's ok! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support with Suggestion - It's not bad, but the links don't seem to fit well. What about "The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one."? Those links would have my strong support- they highlight an important area of the Wiki in a way that fits with the wording and original context of the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  Declined in favour od edit 1. Simply south (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

→ The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one.

Edit 1 per Slow News Day, aka MOTD Editor in Chief, and/or Nutiketaiel, and/or Jim. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support - There really isn't much left to say without making this sound suspiciously like bribery...and/or sockpuppetry. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Support - To clarify, this is not strong support for the motto since some users have asked me not to support my own suggestions (even though, if I were to do so, this motto would have my strong support). This is actually Strong Support of La Pianista's decision to promote me to Editor-in-Chief. This is a proud day for me, my fellow editors. Long have I lusted for power desired to serve my empire the community better by being in a position of authority. Now that MotD is under my jurisdiction, there are going to be sweeping changes. To start with, I'm promoting La Pianista to Demigod, Empress, Queen, First Lady and Administrator-for-Life and awarding her 2 of every Barnstar. Pjoef's is hereby promoted to Minister of Culture and Literature, but quotes are now limited to sources written after 1900 CE. Chamal is hereby promoted to Minister of Film and Grand Duke of Film Quotes; I further decree that mistakenly refering to Chamal as the wrong gender is punishable by the Death of a Thousand Edits. Simply South and Queenie are promoted to my co-Prime Ministers, and are responsible for all the actual work done in my dominion (of course, they do most of it anyway). Juliancolton is promoted to Minister of Creative Veterinary Science, Technology and Culture, and is responsible for the health and grooming of all felines in our realm. The second Thursday of every month is declared to be "Slow News Day." Everyone gets a flying car. The term "consensus" shall be redefined to mean "the Mercurial Whims of Fate." Every Wednesday is "Free Ice Cream Day." The talk page shall be redesigned to include continuous screenings of any movie that Chamal has put a quote up from. Every Sunday, the motto of the day shall be "All Praise to Our Glorious God-Emperor and Editor-in-Chief, and may he live forever." ... I think that about covers the basics. I'm going to go find some attractive women to feed me grapes, and maybe go put in an RfA based on my newly acquired power here. La Pianista's in charge until I get back. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • And just how much time did you waste long did it take the great Editor in Chief to write that? :P —La Pianista Speak · Hear 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, about 45 minutes or so. Does it not amaze you?  ;-) There was probably something else I was supposed to be doing suring that time... work of some sort, perhaps... I'm not really sure. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I was summoned? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Congratulations on your promotion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Now hand me that ice cream, pls. Icy // ♫ 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
            • OK, OK, as Minister of Ice Cream (in addition to Editor-in-Chief, God-Emperor, etc.), I will deliver it to your user page. Try not to spill any on the mainspace, and eat it before it melts. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Icy // ♫ 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - though not before hitting Nutik with one of these for trying to order us mortals around... ;)   —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 09:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-deserved mention of an area of Wikipedia I've never heard of. Why are you turning this entry into a community forum? ;-) ~AH1(TCU) 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved edit 1 per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia that never sleeps

Possibly bland. Simply south is this a buffet? 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It has potential, but the lack of links makes it rather bland. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and I can't think of any good links. Sorry. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A similar motto was used last year (it was "Wikipedia: the website that never sleeps" then), but I still like it and strongly support this motto's future use. That it "never sleeps" really gets the point across that we've got people here 24/7, all day-every day, creating, editing, building this reference work. wodup 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Since it was used already. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - withdrawn. Simply south (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Is this the way to Amarillo?

Simply south is this a buffet? 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - ROFL! I normally wouldn't support a motto just because it is humerous, but I can't help it on this one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good for a laugh, sometimes I really need too lighten up and enjoy, so this recieves a support from me SpitfireTally-ho! 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Nice :D Icy // ♫ 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support →   –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Brilliant. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • SS- SimonKSK 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am a man with few words. ;) SimonKSK 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 5, 2009. Queenie 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

→ It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way...

I'm pretty happy with this one. It shows (among other things) the dichotomy of opinions that can exist about any facet of Wikipedia, between its supporters and detractors. I considered trying to find links for the best and worst of times, but I thought it stood better on its own. No need to link them; the rest of the quote has enough links to establish clear relevance, and the purpose of that first part is just set up anyway. I am also not 100% happy with the link for "Heaven," so if someone can think of a better suggestion, I'm all for it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - As long as it is, this is an excellent motto. I agree that the link to "Heaven" is a bit weak, but I can't think of anything else. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent motto, but I agree that the link to "Heaven" is weak. I also would not advocate a link to WP:ADMIN or Special:Contributions, as these are equally weak. —La Pianista (T•C) 07:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. So glad you were happy with this one :). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose   It's extremly wordya nd may not look very good in tables, userboxes, ect.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Just because a motto is long doesn't mean it is inappropriate. Is it not a good message? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it, but it would be best if the link ti Heaven was removed and not replaced. SimonKSK 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

→ To live with integrity in an unjust society we must work for justice. To walk with integrity through a landscape strewn with beer cans, we must stop and pick them up.

I'm not 100% satisfied with this set of links, though I think they work OK. I am open to further suggestions, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I really like this one. It's a bit long, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Witch's motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - we've had longer mottoes, and although I think it's time to put out some shorter ones, this one is exceptional. Well done. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 6, 2009. Queenie 16:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Live long and prosper

Mr Spock Simply southis this a buffet? 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support (assuming it hasn't been used before) - I'm fine with this one, if we haven't used it already. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - We shouldn't be associating edit count with experience or longevity on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - Why not? In general, people with a high edit count have been at Wikipedia for a long time. How does that not fit with "Live Long"? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, Nutiket, I've only been here for just over a year, and my contribs are around 19,000. I don't consider myself experienced - tools like Huggle exaggerate that. I also believe that that link can encourage WP:ITIS, if only subtly. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I've never used huggle (or any other tool that matter) in the never-ending fight against vandalism; I just do it the old fashioned way- with my fists rollback button. I'll admit to not really understanding how such things work. Regardless, I don't think it is eroneous to draw the comparison. Incidentally, I have 2920 edits, and I do consider myself experienced. Not as experienced as some, but whatever. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Julian. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus. Queenie 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

→ WikipediA: Infinite riches in a little room.

Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593), The Jew of Malta, Act I (1589) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support interesting. Why the A at the start? Simply south not SS, sorry 11:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • A typo? I'm kidding (^___^). I lIkE tO uSe tHe cApItAl lEtTeR "A" iN tHe wOrD "WikipediA". It's in the WikipediA logo at the top left of each page. I piped it! SoRrY (^_^)! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I like the quote, but I don't like the "little room" link to Knowledge. It doesn't seem to fit. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Suggested links: "Wikipedia: infinite riches in a little room". I suppose it's kind of stating the obvious, but the link to knowledge in the original version doesn't seem to fit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd support Julian's links, although this wiki is anything but a small room. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Re2Juliancolton: I thought it was clear and that there was no need to explain it. Well, that link is related to the humyn knowledge because it's little good. Think to Physics and the theory of relativity, or to Quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. Also, think to Psychology, the mind and the function of a brain, the deep-sea animals, the universe and the infinite, gods and goddesses, diseases... it's an infinite list. We all really know nothing or just a little part of the whole. But, WikipediA can help with its infinite riches in a little room. I think it is good as it is, simply and to the point. Anyway, it's just my humble opinion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I feel like i am quibbling over a minor point but why is there a capital A there? Was that in the original quote? Simplysouthisthisabuffet? 16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Re2Simply south: WikipediA??? in 1590??? I added it (and with the CAPITAL A). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Question - I don't get it. I had assumed that it was a typo. What does the capital "A" mean? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Reply: The logo at the top left that links to the main page -- it reads WikipediA. Pjoef said that already ^_^ Queenie Talk 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Its weird, when i made the second A comment, some of the text was missing (even though it doesn't seem to show this in the history). So can i retract my comment? Simplysouth is this a buffet? 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • ReplyI missed it because I have trained myself not to see text that looks lIkE tHiS. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Regardless of what the logo says, it's called "Wikipedia", without the bizarre and arbitrary capitalization. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - needs more discussion. Queenie Talk 17:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments Love the first two links, but how is Knowledge=Little room? Icy // ♫ 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Re2Icy: everything is less than infinite (excluding infinite to the power of infinite to the power of infinite ...), so everything is scarce, and humYn knowledge is certainly finite and comparable to a vErY lItTlE rOoM (^__^). This is an issue that belongs to philosophy, mathematics, logic, physics, theology, etcetera, etcetera. Our knowledge is not a small room but a cupboard or just a small memory box, because it is very poor. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Then, on those grounds, I change my vote to Strong Oppose. I can't bring myself to support a motto that denigrates the vastness of human achievement and human potential in this manner. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus. Queenie 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Never anger made good guard for itself.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Antony and Cleopatra, Act IV, Scene i (1623) ~ I'm always late /o\ ... have a great Valentine's Day ... 2010 (^___^)! peACE & LuV 2 All –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Clarification Request - I'm not up on my Shakespeare; could you explain the context of the quote? I'm afraid I can;t figure out what its trying to say without the context. The wording is too obscure for my poor, addled brain. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Summary: Act IV, Scene i: Before Alexandria. OCTAVIUS CAESAR's camp.
Octavius Caesar receives Antony's challenge at his camp near Alexandria. His friend, Maecenas, counsels him to take advantage of Antony's rage, for "[n]ever anger / Made good guard for itself" Octavius Caesar prepares his army and plans to crush Antony.


Enter Octavius Caesar (One of the three men who rule Rome), Agrippa (Military commander and advisor of Octavius), and Mecaenas (Octavius' friend), with his Army; Octavius Caesar reading a letter

Octavius Caesar: He calls me boy; and chides, as he had power
To beat me out of Egypt; my messenger
He hath whipp'd with rods; dares me to personal combat,
Caesar to Antony: let the old ruffian know
I have many other ways to die; meantime
Laugh at his challenge.

Mecaenas: Caesar must think,
When one so great begins to rage, he's hunted
Even to falling. Give him no breath, but now
Make boot of his distraction: never anger
Made good guard for itself.

Octavius Caesar: Let our best heads
Know, that to-morrow the last of many battles
We mean to fight: within our files there are,
Of those that served Mark Antony but late,
Enough to fetch him in. See it done:
And feast the army; we have store to do't,
And they have earn'd the waste. Poor Antony!

Exeunt

Antony and Cleopatra is available online for free. The quote is about "anger" or, more precisely, it is about "rage" and how to take advantage of it. But, my interpretation is different. I first thought to link it to the opposite meaning, the antonym of "anger"/"rage" but I prefered to link it to WP:LOVE because LuV is the answer to every question!!! Also, I think that the combination, quote+link, is very intriguing and it will push people to click it (that is not so bad after all). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the context and explanation, but I must Oppose. The interpretation is too obscure, and without context I never would have figured it out, made worse by the fact that your interpretation is not the one supported by the context, so even if someone were interested enough to look up the source of the quote, or enough of a Shakespearean to know it off the top of their heads, they still would not likely see the connection between it and the link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Nutiketaiel. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If I can't understand it, nobody can. Who can understand Shakespeare anyway? But seriously, a lot f people will not understand this. Chamal talk 15:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I completely understand it, but the fact that my peers do not shakes my confidence in this motto a little. —La Pianista (T•C) 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Showoff.  :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If you got it, flaunt it, baby. / La Pianista Dolce, ma non troppo 17:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It's hard to argue with that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
          • It's hard to argue with most that comes out of my bouche, hon. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Every time Pianista shows up on this motto, she has a new sig... what will she have next time? :P Queenie Talk 13:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus. Queenie 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch this space!

Simply south not SS, sorry 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I guess letting people know that the watchlist exists is a good message for those who don't know about it already, but the message is very blase. Maybe on a (drumroll, please) slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support, per Nutiketaiel. <insert random profanity here> —La Pianista (T•C) 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's nice, but (IMHO) is it really worth putting up a motto to notify people of the existence of the watchlist? From my own experience - other editors feel free to disagree - once I started editing kind-of steadily, getting to the watchlist really wasn't something people had to tell me. Icy // ♫ 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I'm pretty sure most people who know about MOTD also know about their watchlist. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Queenie Talk 21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • weak oppose - It's very meh in my opinion. I would have to agree with Julian here. SimonKSK 14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus. Queenie Talk 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Me like pie

I've seen this across the internet and also on Sabrina, said by Salem. Yes i'm sad. Simply south is this a buffet? 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - While the link is funny, the quote really has no relevance. It might be passable as an April Fool's Day motto, but not a normal one in my opinion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose - After seeing this, I change my stance to Strong Oppose. We should not be trying to use mottos to further our own arguements in other parts of the Wiki.  :-( Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • That is something completely different and i was not intending it to further mine or anyone else's opinions. Yes i used it thre but as a separate thing as a random title to show there not to take things seriously. I thought it would make a good motto over here as it is quite funny (even contradicting itself). I'll change the title over there. Simply south is this a buffet? 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Nutiketaiel's first argument. It really makes no sense to me. Sorry. Chamal talk 15:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nutiket. / La Pianista Dolce, ma non troppo 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sorry, it simply doesn't make sense to me.... Icy // ♫ 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per WP:SNOW. Queenie Talk 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on Aisle 3!

It just came to me after I saw an article that DESPERATELY needed cleanup. SAVIOR_SELF.777 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Is this a quote from something? If it is, it should be linked to it with a little arrow. Queenie Talk 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Yeah! SRS is here. The thing is that it is from many movies and shows, so it's kinda hard to link it... SimonKSK 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Well known quote, and rather humorous motto. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Without the cute quote I'd say it's a bit too bland, but I think the quote itself is nice enough for a support. Icy // ♫ 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Reminding people about the existance of the cleanup page is good, but the quote is extremely meh. Maybe on a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Simple and straight to the point. We shouldn't stick to only mind-twisting mottos :) Chamal talk 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - how about changing the last link to WP:OPEN? —La Pianista (T•C) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you mean the link for "Aisle 3," it wouldn't make much sense IMO. Maybe the "Cleanup" link, but I think how it is now is good. SAVIOR_SELF.777 19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:OPEN lists articles needing all sorts of maintenance work, not just cleanup. If we are looking for that, I think Category:Cleanup by month would be a better option. Chamal talk 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie Talk 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on Aisle 3!

Edit 1 per the male version of me. —La Pianista (T•C) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - message is clearer, second link does help vastly. —La Pianista (T•C) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Please see Wikipedia_talk:Motto_of_the_day#Supporting_one.27s_own_motto. Btw, you are contradicting yourself now per this. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, we still haven't come to a consensus there (one editor one one side, one editor on the other and a third who doesn't have a problem with it, but also doesn't see its necessity). I've been restricting myself from supporting my own mottos voluntarily, not because there was a consensus against me (it was also in large part because I couldn't think of anything funny to say in my own support). If you're going to start jumping on people, I'll just go back to what I was doing before. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support better link for "Aisle 3" than mine SAVIOR_SELF.777 00:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per me, and my female version. Hey wait... WHAT??? Chamal talk 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry jklhikhjiojiop Simply south is this a buffet? 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per above. It's clear and to the point. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 3, 2009. Queenie Talk 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Everyone be quiet, including me. Shhh! Who's making that noise? Oh, it's me again.

So we are out of motto noms again, which reminds me that I should find something. Chamal talk 12:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - This one sends a great message, and has the added benefit of being hilarious. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: the amusement of it catchs one's attention, and the message stays with us SpitfireTally-ho! 13:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - heh –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I love it! SimonKSK 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Shhh! lol –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Tacit strong support. ;) And hey, is it just me, or has Chamal spent a lot of time with Disney and Pixar lately? —La Pianista (T•C) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Suggestion - Perhaps he's simply recapturing his inner child. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per WP:SNOW for 2nd April. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Success comes in cans. Failure comes in can'ts.

I just saw this somewhere on a poster, I don't know where it's from exactly. Wikiert (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favout of Edit 1. Queenie Talk 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Success comes in cans. Failure comes in can'ts.

Edit 1, per me above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 31, 2009. Queenie Talk 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

→...those values upon which our success depends on hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.

From Barack Obama's very long speech. Suggestions are open. SimonKSK 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Describes Wikipedia quite well, although a bit long, and I'm not sure about starting the quote with "...But". ~AH1(TCU) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Took out the but, and long mottos are perfectly fine, as long as they make sense. SimonKSK 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support with comment Nice, but I don't like the link to WP:TRUE. Icy // ♫ 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Admirable motto, excellent links in almost all of them, but too long for my liking. I also think the link to WP:TRUE should be removed, not replaced, since there is a lot of blue there in the first place. —La Pianista (T•C) 07:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Weak Support - It's an OK motto, though it rambles a little. It has my weak support on the condition that the link wo WP:TRUE is removed and not replaced. In its current form, I oppose. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Done SimonKSK 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The loyalty and patriotism links don't make any sense to me. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-02t13:58z
    • Reply - We all loyal to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I agree with the patriotism link that it does not click. SimonKSK 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - not enough discussion. Queenie Talk 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - It's alright, but a bit too long. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. What about removing the first and the last parts of it???

    our success depends on hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism

    Also, patriotism may be linked to Wikipedia#Wikipedia_community, Wikimania, or WP:FB. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Supporty: to my mind that's just perfect for wikipedia, sure to make everyone who really see's it stop and think about the project, and just what it means, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved per weak consensus for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 30, 2009. Queenie Talk 20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

→ The wolf knows whom to eat.

Another one from Putin. The rest of it goes "...and is not about to listen to anyone" but I guess we can't add that. Chamal talk 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's OK, I guess, but linking article development to eating seems a little... counter-intuitive. What was the original context of the quote? Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply: The original one goes "Comrade wolf knows who to eat. He eats without listening to anybody and it seems he is not ever going to listen." This is about the US defence budget, and he is talking about how Russia should do the same. Chamal talk 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Support - OK, looking at the quote in context, it makes a little more sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Does this imply that we only know which articles to develop? —La Pianista (T•C) 07:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - It doesn't say that the wolf is the only one who knows whom to eat, only that the wolf DOES know. It's not exclusive. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Hm. That does help a little. Nonetheless, it still seems a weak motto to begin with. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Queenie Talk 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)   Rejected per consensus. Queenie Talk 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

→ The wolf knows whom to eat.

edit 1. This quote looks to me like it should be another vandalism one so it is so. Simply south not SS, sorry 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - This version works too, and might be a little more intuitively obvious to the reader. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: I really don't like mottos that talk about blocking vandals. IMHO, it's like saying "come on, make a mistake - we are looking forward to revert and block". Chamal talk 14:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - In this context, "blocking" vandals is just a metaphor. We do actually eat them. Nom nom nom. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus. Queenie Talk 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

→ When a man gets angry, he falls down.

Humorous (?) motto from the depths of Wikiquote. Interesting question here - is it superfluous to link "man" to WP:EDIAN? I notice we've been doing this very often, but it's just a thought to ponder. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Funny, good message. ~AH1(TCU) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie Talk 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

→ When a man gets angry, he falls down.

Edit 1 - not so humorous, but conveys a message. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 29, 2009. Queenie Talk 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Here's one I made earlier

Often used when showing the final result of a thing they made. Simply south not SS, sorry 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand the reference at all. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just capitalized the 'I'. I'm a grammar freak, I know. TopGearFreak 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • In reply to User:Slow News Day, i was trying to say that here is an article whoever has made earlier. Could someone please come up with better links or even, should i have WP:CREATE link to it all? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think any set of links would work. There's something inherently missing in the phrasing of this motto that, I am sorry to say, is very, very boring. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blandest of bland, sorry. —La Pianista (T•C) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - How about just → Here's one I made earlier? - Matty4123 (T•C•A) 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Queenie Talk 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  Rejected per consensus. Queenie Talk 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Here's one I made earlier

Matty4123's suggestion. — Jake Wartenberg 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support — Jake Wartenberg 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - And what if the random article was not one you made? SimonKSK 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not supposed to be taken literally, the "I" is supposed to be the wikipedia community in general. - Matty4123 (T•C•A) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I understand the meaning Matty's getting at, but it's still a bland motto nonetheless. —La Pianista (T•C) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Queenie Talk 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected per consensus. Queenie Talk 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Here's one I made earlier

This should be more suitable i hope, as it links to a tool which shows all previously moved\made articles, lists, disambiguation pages and redirects of a user once entered. Simply south not SS, sorry

  • Weak Support - Well, it now links to a little known tool which can be useful. Still an odd phrase, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Its from a British TV Show in case your wondering so American's probably wouldn't get this. - Matty4123 (T•C•A) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Ah, thank you for the clarification, though. Still an odd turn of phrase, though. I'm an American, though, so I don't speak English. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - link is more useful, but the catchphrase just doesn't do it for me. Maybe keep the link and try something else? —La Pianista (T•C) 06:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  Reopened - no consensus. Queenie Talk 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Rejected - no consensus. Queenie Talk 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Diff in Question
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_19&oldid=1190128292"