Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

New facts created daily.

Draws attention to all the new topic pages helping to grow Wikipedia. Hackaday (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Medium support - I like it, but it really does not convey a meaning. SimonKSK 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Neutral, leaning on oppose. Per Simon, no real tangible meaning here, sorry. —La Pianista (T•C) 07:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We don't create facts, just catalogue them, this motto seems to insinuate that very slightly, sorry SpitfireTally-ho! 10:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Yeah, we don't make the facts. If you want to make facts, go to Wikinews.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, but we don't create facts. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per WP:SNOW. Queenie Talk 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

→ There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.

From Wikiquote. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: nice quote, great links SpitfireTally-ho! 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - An elegant quote, and a good reminder of the importance of the editors to the project. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Great idea. ~AH1(TCU) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (moving support to Edit 1), good links. I still have the vague sense that it could be even better, which is the only prevention from my strong support. —La Pianista (T•C) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes! Very good change of pace. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie Talk 19:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

→ There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.

Edit 1 per Julian.

  • Support - better version, interesting link. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I was fine with the original, but there's nothing wrong with this version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Good one. Chamal talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the difference is between this one and the original? Simply south not SS, sorry 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply - The first link (light) was originally to Knowledge, not Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 2, 2009. Queenie Talk 19:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Nobody ever said it was safe.

Dumb? Please suggest better links if you can. Chamal talk 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't think that the quote really says much about Wikipedia, even with links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I can't think of any better links now, sorry. If I do, I'll be sure to drop a note here. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Seems to be a case of WP:SNOW. Queenie Talk 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's I in Wikipedia, as well as we.

Variation on There's no I in team but for soe reason the last part sounds wrong. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Is the "I" supposed to lead to a misspelled link? -cough- Icy // ♫ 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. You can do it yourself, Icy. :) —La Pianista (T•C) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - how about, There may be an "I" in Wikipedia, but there is also a "we" ? —La Pianista (T•C) 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be an "I" in Wikipedia, but there is also a "we"

edit 1 per The Piano Player. Simply south not SS, sorry 13:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Will change to slightly stronger support if South corrects himself and refers to me as a pianista. There is a difference between a piano player and a pianist, you know. :P —La Pianista (T•C) 19:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, Simply south, you can't even get her name right. *shakes head* SimonKSK 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Piano player redirects to Pianist. Okay, the female piano player. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
        • 'Tis not a gender issue, 'tis an issue of title. Alas, ye shan't understand... —La Pianista (T•C) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
          • You wanted pianista, i gave you pianista. Simply south not SS, sorry 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Actually, Nutiketaiel wanted Pianista, so...I am going to run this joke until it bombs on its momma. —La Pianista (T•C) 02:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Woah o.O SimonKSK 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                • On the slow news today, we have royalty! I never thought that there would be such a news bulliten. Btw, are you saying that I'm your mother?!? Simply south not SS, sorry 12:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • Wait a minute, you people don't know your own family? Chamal talk 14:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • So, this is what I get for not checking in over the weekends. By the way, why were you using the past tense, there, La Pianista? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                      • O.o *flees out back door* —La Pianista (T•C) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                        • We are getting a bit too deep, guys. REALLY deep. So deep that the Texas Pianista had to run away from you, Nutiketaiel. >_>SimonKSK 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                          • Was it something I said? Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                            • *facepalm* I'm gonna archive this so we don't reveal more...ahh..."personal" info. SimonKSK 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - There is also pee in Wikipe- oh wait.... SimonKSK 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Epic fail. —La Pianista (T•C) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have my days. SimonKSK 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It's Ok! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Nice message. Chamal talk 14:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Strong message, clever wording (better than the original, in my opinion), and the third link is perfect. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice one. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Approved because it had a lot of drama. ;D SimonKSK 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Act quickly... but not too quickly.

I saw it on Wikiquote and this was the first thing that came to mind. SobaNoodleForYou 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

These aren't even oranges, they're yellows. Still, that doesn't mean we should throw them out, since there's no reason not to eat them.

~AH1(TCU) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Love it. 'Nough said. SimonKSK 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support although i am wondering whether the last link could link to WP:EXPAND. Don't change it though it is good already with the current links. Simply south not SS, sorry 13:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as is. I don't see how expanding abbreviations has to do with stub writing. —La Pianista (T•C) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is one of the few mottoes that made me stop and think. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Overwhelmingly Strong Support - This is a fantastic motto with perfect links. Don't change anything!! What is the source of this quote? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, I made it myself, after eating an orange that appeared more yellow than orange :P . ~AH1(TCU) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

→ As sunshine, broken in the rill,
Though turned astray, is sunshine still.

Thomas Moore (1779–1852), Lalla Rookh, an Oriental Romance: The Fire Worshippers (1817) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I really had to think about this one before I was sure what it meant, and even now I'm not 100% sure. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I don't see any real problems, but I don't like having repetitive links. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south not SS, sorry 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support + question - Indeed, I had to chew over this one a bit. And I'm not a fan about that repeated WP:EDIANS link. Even with its removal, though, my vote would stay as is. Just to clarify things, what does "broken in the rill" refer to here? —La Pianista (T•C) 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply + lol: good question, LP. I'm sorry but I forgot how I come out with that link (^____^). I tried to remember... but nothing comes to mind. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Approved per admittedly weak consensus for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 26, 2009. Queenie Talk 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

→ I was very, very drunk!

From The Fast Show. Simply south not SS, sorry 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - how about linking the whole thing to WP:EUI? That'd be funny. —La Pianista (T•C) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support but the above would be funny. SobaNoodleForYou 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's what I was thinking, Pianista. TopGearFreak 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected in favour of Edit 1. Queenie Talk 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

→ I was very, very drunk!

Per La Pianista. I can see why. Simply south not SS, sorry 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per that genius hottie. What's her name again? —La Pianista (T•C) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Note to self: Put on wig and bra! Simply south not SS, sorry 23:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Gentlemen, we are going to drink till she is hot. SimonKSK 02:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
        • So...you're not going to drink at all? :P —La Pianista (T•C) 02:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Stop kidding yourself. SimonKSK 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
            • The Queen of England does not kid herself. —La Pianista (T•C) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
              • So what queen would you be then? Simply south not SS, sorry 12:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Boy, am I glad I wasn't involved in this one. I'm in deep enough as it is. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • You got that right, Past Tense boy. SimonKSK 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • Come now. This MOTD, not the headquarters of Wikiholics Anonymous. :P —La Pianista (T•C) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • I can quit anytime I want to. I just don't want to. Mostly because it hurts when I try. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
                      • That's what my friend said when I told him to stop killing people. SimonKSK 21:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support and comment - I think her name was Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. :O SimonKSK 22:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Finally, a legit reason to contribute to EUI! :P ~AH1(TCU) 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support *Hic* ;) Chamal talk 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support- just put it on my tab - Looks good to me. Links to a page that is funny and deserves some attention, not to mention reminding people what to do on the morning after their drinking/wiki binge. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 25, 2009. Queenie Talk 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it.

Another simplistic motto I found off (guess where?) Wikiquote. Motivational, indeed. For once, I'll withhold my narcissism until I hear what the community thinks. ;) —La Pianista (T•C) 07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • A Very Reluctant Weak Oppose - I understand the idea, but it seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia's inclusionist stance. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - It could be read that way, though it certainly wasn't my intention (member of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD here). I rather meant it as a motivational message. My main concern, maybe, is that it's a bit too perky. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Clarification - I didn't mean that kind of inclusionist. I meant that we welcome everyone to edit. To my reading, it says that only a "great man" can be an editor, which, to me, seems to imply that being an accomplished individual is a pre-requisite to becoming an editor, which is not a great message to send. I know that wasn't what you meant (you probably meant that our editors are great, not that you have to be great to be an editor), but I'm worried that that is how it will be read, hense my very reluctant weak oppose. Or, maybe I'm opposing because I want to make it seem like we don't agree all the time so people will stop thinking I have a crush on you (how did that rumor get started?). One or the other.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, if you still have worries about that rumor, the fact that your oppose was "very reluctant" is a bit questionable. ;P Almost as questionable as my withdrawal. —La Pianista (T•C) 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn per Fast News Day's amazing logic. It's not what you think, honest! *blush* —La Pianista (T•C) 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    • A compliment! I'm never washing this screen! Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn. Simply south not SS, sorry 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Eating the bitter bread of banishment.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), King Richard the Second, Act III, Scene i (1623) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmmmmm... Weak Support - The link is appropriate, but there's not much of a message here, except drawing editor's attention to a list of people that we're well rid of. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No need to talk about people that were banned. Flogging the dead horse? Chamal talk 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per H5N1 carrier (long story). —La Pianista (T•C) 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Queenie Talk 18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty;

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), As You Like It, Act II, Scene iii (1623) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose this motto itself is okay but the links i'm sure are meant to link to aspects of Wikipedia structure, not perceptions\tech\articles of Wikipedia, with exceptions. Simply south not SS, sorry 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I like the last two links. We're pretty insular here, so it's nice to spread around some information about how we're perceived. //roux   14:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Roux. It's nice to have something different from the normal FA- or vandalism-related mottoes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The motto is a refreshing change of pace and the links are excellent choices, highlighting some of the good aspects of Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - the specific links really give sharp food for thought...refreshing freshness. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 24, 2009. Queenie Talk 18:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I have another one. It replaces "WP:WAR" withWP:BLOCK and people with WP:BAN, to show the diff between a ban and a block. Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose ~ I don't like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't kill anybody on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Er, firstly we don't kill each other, secondly I don't get the links. Kfc18645 talk 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The motto is a poor choice for this community overall, and the links are not the best either. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seems too violent for an apt motto. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

→ This We'll Defend

Number 3. BW21.--BlackWatch21 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - Links are very predictable. It's blah. SimonKSK 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too predictable for my taste. And very meh, sorry. —La Pianista (T•C) 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ~ not a good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - While it is meh, there's nothing inherently wrong with it as a motto, predictable though it may be. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye world!

I can't remember where this is from. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - There's really not much of a message here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - we shouldn't focus too much on retiring users. It might create the wrong effect. —La Pianista (T•C) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: We have to give a strong, useful message. It's not just about a dramatic phrase. Chamal talk 14:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Goodbye phrase! Simply south not SS, sorry 15:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't take that too hard, Simply south. Just my honest opinion. Chamal talk 15:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected - withdrawn Queenie Talk 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Alone we can do so little.
Together, we can do so much.

₰imonKSK 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Hmmm... I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, I like the encouragement for teamwork. On the other, it seems to be implying that a lone editor can only make a stub. Still, that interpretation is a bit of a stretch... OK, it has my support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral I like the quote but like stated above, I think it gives the impression that a lone editor can't do better than a stub. BW21.--BlackWatch21 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply: How about WP:GA? ₰imonKSK 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait I don't consider a GA to be little. Sugggestions? ₰imonKSK 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - That would be an improvement, in my opinion. It praises teamwork without devaluing individual achievement. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ~ I like the quote so much but not the links. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Alone we can do so little.
Together, we can do so much.

Edit 1 - ₰imonKSK 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per everyone. ;) —La Pianista (T•C) 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ~ Featured articles are the best articles in Wikipedia and GA, FL and FA can not be assigned by WikiProjects' members. What about: Alone we can do so little. / Together, we can do so much.??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - So what's larger? A FA or a Wikipedia full of FAs? Do you actually understand the motto and links? Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose suggested links - The links say that all we can do alone to just basic navigation. Is that so? Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Replay, I can assure you that I have understood the motto ~l☺l~ and I really don't like the link to FA! This is an excellent motto that speaks for itself, but the FA link doesn't work. IMHO, trying to play down the importance of a FA article is not a good idea. I would liked to use a different link for Alone in my version; I searched for something related to readers, ppl who read wikipedia without contributing to it, but I have not found any. So, I used the WP:MISSYOU because they are no longer contributing to the community. Using my links --or similar ones-- the meaning of the motto is: you can read wikipedia but it is always better to join us and contribute, which is not so bad. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - FAs aren't created by a single user. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. There's such a big hoo-ha about FAs being the ultimate, but there are hardly any mottos on how important the whole encyclopedia is. TopGearFreak 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus (just). Simply south not SS, sorry 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

→ I sometimes go to my own little world, but that's okay, they know me there.

Very Simple, but quite nice I think SpitfireTally-ho! 21:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Good idea. ~AH1(TCU) 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose - It's just a little meh. SimonKSK 00:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I like it. I would like it better if "they know me there" was linked in some way to emphasize the community aspects of Wikipedia, but that's just a suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected - Edit 1 approved. Queenie Talk 17:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

→I sometimes go to my own little world, but that's okay, they know me there.

Edit 1 per Juliancolton. —La Pianista (T•C) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - The message is much clearer here. —La Pianista (T•C) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Thankyou Juliancolton, much clearer message, as La Pianista said SpitfireTally-ho! 11:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 22, 2009. Queenie Talk 17:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.

If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.

If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.

It's a little long, but this is one of the few poems I'm really fond of, and I think it works for our purposes. It is used at the UN Building in New York City. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - To be honest, I'm a little iffy about this one. It is a beautiful poem, but I feel that some of the links to vandalism kind of... trivialize it, when it is supposed to be about world community. Additionally, the links in the second line are not totally in keeping with the original meaning. If anyone can suggest more appropriate links, please do. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ~ It's a bit too long, but the overall concept is good. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It's quite long, but I like it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. A great philosophization of the Wikipedia community. However, the second sentence (3-4 out of 6 lines) is a bit odd, do we start watching articles because fellow Wikipedians were vandalised? Also, the "pain" of the second and third sentences are a bit inconsistent with each other. ~AH1(TCU) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 21, 2009 TopGearFreak 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

→ I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free.

Two terrible motto suggestions. But then, we're in a desperate situation aren't we? Rescue them with better links if you can. Chamal talk 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I'm sorry, I just don't think the first line, "I hope for nothing," is the right message for Wikipedia. Equating hopelessness with freedom is not a very positive message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Yeah, a bit too hopeless for a fit motto. —La Pianista (T•C) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - How about → I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. or → I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free.. Matty4123 (T•C•A) 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I don't really like either set of suggested links... and, to be honest, for the reasons listed above i still don't think that the motto is right for us. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - No consensus. TopGearFreak 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per weak consensus. TopGearFreak 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Ich bin ein Berliner.

Said by President Kennedy. Berliner is Wikipedian instead.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support: It's okay, but a bit boring. —La Pianista (T•C) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It;s very boring, but it's OK as long as it hasn't been used before. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unforunately oppose - Frequently used idea. Simply south not SS, sorry 12:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be "Ich bin ein Berliner." "Bien" is not a word in German. Xenon54 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Danke schön. A Weak Support from me. It's boring, but at least it's orignial. Xenon54 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oooh, look, there's little dots over the "o." How exotic.  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. TopGearFreak 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Kinda boring, but it'll be good to have something a bit different. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 20, 2009. TopGearFreak 18:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

→ If every man did the little he could—what a different world!

A fairly simple motto reminding everyone that we all need to contribute a little to change the world (since Wikipedia is, after all, the world). Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Hmmmmm... yes, I support this motto. What a brilliant editor who posted this one! Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Agreed. That guy is a genius, a natural wonder, I say...what's his name again? —La Pianista (T•C) 02:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Oh, I'm sure he would rather remain anonymous, and let his edits speak for themselves. After all, it's bad form to support one's own mottos.  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Super-Strong Support!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as the em dash in unspaced. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply — Done — if that's alright with you — I wouldn't want to violate the Manual of Style — it is there for a reason, after all — maybe someone should make a motto referencing the manual of style — that way, people remember to use it — I'll get on that — ASAP. : — ) Nutiket — aiel — (talk) — 15:24, — 21 — January — 2009 — (U — T — C)
  • Support It's good. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 19, 2009 TopGearFreak 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!

From Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, the second half of the passage refering to the Red Queen's race. Essentially, I'm saying that it takes alot of work to get an article to a GA level and maintain it there- to really get it to excel, you have to work even harder, and it helps to be part of a team (hense the Wikiproject link). I'm not totally satisfied with the "keep" and "twice as fast" links, though, so suggestions are appreciated.

  • Support - Obviously I support my own suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Excellent motto. It's just the last link - it doesn't really click. Any ideas? —La Pianista (T•C) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am possibly doubting this one but "twice as fast" could possibly link to AWB\HUGGLE\TWINKLE or similar maybe? Simply south not SS, sorry 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I considered that, but the rest of the links are about editing, not vandalism fighting, so I think it would be incongruous. What about WP:Edit Count or maybe Wikipedia:Edits Per Day? Or maybe I should remove the last link entirely and just link all of "run at least twice as fast" to WP:WORK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: WP:BOLD for twice as fast???
    • Reply - That is a good suggestion; I have changed the motto to reflect that. Thank you, masked suggestioner!! Whoever you are, you have saved the day again. Who was that masked man? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • super-super lol Oops /o\. I forgot to sign my post. I'm always in a hurry, doing different things at the same time.... Anyway, you are most welcome (^_+)! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. TopGearFreak 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support! Excellent motto and good links. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 18, 2009 TopGearFreak 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1 + 1 = 3

NO, I don't suck at math. I'm on the honor roll. It means that when you put effort in, you get more than you expected. ₰imonKSK 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I understand the message you're trying to get across, I just don't like the form. Using 1+1=3 just doesn't seem like the best way to get that across. There must be a better way to say it in words without making it look like the entire group of MotD contributors can't add. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply Lulz. I know. I didn't have the higest hopes for this one, but I don't know how to make this one into something that is not predictable, is good, and does not make us look like idiots. Suggestions? ₰imonKSK 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Consideration - Isn't there some saying that football coaches write on locker room walls to motivate dumb jocks? Persperation + Determination = Something Else -ation? Something like that? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh-heh. Oppose per N... Also, I don't like linking to WP:WORK; that page should be marked with {{historical}}. – wodup – 08:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about, "1 + 1 = 3"? ~AH1(TCU) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose because while I get what you're saying, your explanation doesn't come along with the motto when we schedule it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. TopGearFreak 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little teapot, short and stout,
Here is my handle and here is my spout.
When I get all steamed up hear me shout:
"Tip me up and pour me out!"

I know this is a nursery rhyme but i thought it would be good in promoting help for new users. However, i think the links are a bit like that previous template one i tried. Any suggestions? Simply south not SS, sorry 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I actually rather like those links. I think it's good to remind people that those opportunities for seeking assistance exist. One suggestion- try linking part or all of the last line to either WP:MENTOR or WP:ADOPT and see how that looks. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I've done Adopt and sorted that S. Simply south not SS, sorry 09:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Cool. I hope that you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of capitalizing the "I" in the 3rd line. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like the motto, but the last link doesn't really make a lot of sense. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Tipping over and pouring out the tea kettle is the way you respond to its requests for assistance (the steaming up and shouting)- in the same manner, adopting someone is a way to respond to their requests for assistance, as referenced in the earlier links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Great idea and links (but I've added an exclaimation mark to the end of "out"). ~AH1(TCU) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is actually quite funny, well done! Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 17, 2009. TopGearFreak 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

→ It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.

Something off Wikiquote - an idea we forget a little too often. —La Pianista (T•C) 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I must say, that nominator is a genius. Drop-dead gorgeous, too...I'd kill to have those brains and looks. —La Pianista (T•C) 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish you would... :D But while you're at it, Support. Chamal talk 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good as far as I can tell. However, you'd almost think the above vote is a sock of the nominator... strange... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. ~AH1(TCU) 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 20:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

Chamal talk 14:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - An excellent quote with an excellent message for Wikipedians; it only needs the one link to get its point across. More would be cumbersome. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — Awesome. — Jake Wartenberg 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Gotta love the Gandhi. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: great quote, nice link SpitfireTally-ho! 10:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 20:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

→ There are people with whom one does not negotiate.

This one was on terrorism. Maybe a bit harsh, though. Chamal talk 14:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks good to me. I think people need to be reminded not to feed trolls from time to time. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Not harsh at all. Like I always say, you must get over that softie persona, cherie. ;) —La Pianista (T•C) 06:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Good idea overall, but isn't linking to WP:DENY sort of feeding the trolls? (in a paradoxial sort of way.) ~AH1(TCU) 00:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Clever and witty. I like it. Greggers (t • c) 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting things can be tough.
But you should always
grit, grin, and dive in.

₰imonKSK 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellent message, very good (if predictable) links. A question- does there really need to be a comma at the end of the second line? Maybe it's just me, but a stop there seems... out of place. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done ₰imonKSK 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: Good one. Maybe change first link to WP:YFA? Nothing wrong with the current version though, I like both ways alike. Chamal talk 14:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Chamal's first link is just a little bit better. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea, encouraging. ~AH1(TCU) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support current bun. Simply south not SS, sorry 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 13, 2009. TopGearFreak 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the weather, wait a minute

Another meh one, bit given the recent drought of mottoes, I think it might work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Nuetral - don't get the wait a minute part. §imonKSK 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty well-known quote, assuming that what you're confused about. If it's the links that you find confusing, the motto basically says "If you don't like an article, be bold and edit it". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I know the quote. But the quote says If you don't like, wait until it gets better. That does not imply being bold and editing. §imonKSK 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the motto implies that if you dislike something, you should take action to fix it. In the case of the original quote, the action is to wait a minute. In the case of my proposed motto, the action is to edit the article to make it better. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The motto says that, if you don't like something, you should wait around and do nothing and it will change eventually. The links say that, if you don't like something, you should take action to fix it. It's a mixed message, and the first message is not one we want to be sending. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nutiketaiel. —La Pianista (T•C) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. TopGearFreak 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose, while we might get it, and you would obviously get it, but, that doesn't mean that everybody will get it.←--Kfc18645 talk 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. TopGearFreak 14:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are.

A motto I found off Wikiquote that teaches us to respect and accept IPs. It might be a little long, but seeing as some of the longer mottoes have received positive feedback, I think this one has a chance. :) —La Pianista (T•C) 05:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - The motto itself was an inspired choice- even without links, its positive message and relevancy to Wikipedia would be clear. With the chosen links, it's just fantastic. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Super Support - Wow. That's uhhh... "deep" ₰imonKSK 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I'm sorry, it looks a really good motto, it's too much to take in. By the time I get to the end I've forgotten how it started. Sorry. TopGearFreak 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I can add some /brs ₰imonKSK 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply the reply - Actually, I liked it the other way. It seemed to flow better. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply the reply of my reply - It flowed better with my way, but you nominated it, so yeah. ₰imonKSK 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • OpposeChanging to Neutral: Lines are kind of too long and I don't get what it means at first glance. (Or maybe I'm slow after a whole day at the computer) Chamal talk 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about splitting it in two parts for two consecutive days??? → ...that supports everyone.... ...But it is also... –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - There's nothing wrong with a long motto, and I think we're insulting the intelligence of our readers to assume that they lack the attention spans to get through it. Also, it does flow better this way. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I have nothing against long mottos. In fact I have nominated long ones myself. But a motto should be something that grabs the attention and delivers the message quickly I think. If it forces the reader to think "oh, this means that, so the other one must mean..." that has missed the point. Mottos are something that is put up in some corner of someone's userpage. People read it only when they see it, they don't go looking for it. And when they see it, if it is not like what I said, he won't be interested at all. Chamal talk 15:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I see your point, but this motto really sends a fantastic message, no matter the length, a message that is all to frequently ignored by registered users. I think it deserves our support because the message is so important, even if it is longer than usual. Indeed, perhaps because it is unusually long, people will be intrigued enough to read the whole thing. As long as we use these long mottos sparingly, I think they can be a refreshing change of pace ofr our readers. (And yes, it took me 2 days to come up with that response.) Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • lol OK. You have a point there, so I'll withdraw my oppose. Not supporting though, since this kind of balances against my points but doesn't really overcome them IMHO. Chamal talk 14:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Sounds good to me. We are evenly matched on the rhetoric battlefield! Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Great philosophy. ~AH1(TCU) 01:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 11:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.

  • My second motto, hope you like it. BW21.--BlackWatch21 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - It's meh. ₰imonKSK 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Gives me the impression that editing is a competition. And being bold doesn't mean you write stuff that gets reverted. Chamal talk 14:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - yep, we already have quite a few editors who use Huggle like a race. ;) —La Pianista (T•C) 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about changing links to make them point to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (or WP:FA, WP:FAR, WP:FARC eventually for if I cannot win, WP:TFA) and WP:BOLD??? → Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose the original links, Weak Support of the suggested change - I don't like the original message, per La Pianista and Chamal. The second one is a little better, though I'm not 100% comfortable with equating a RFA with being bold. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the original links. It's not a "race" to edit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per WP:SNOWBALL. TopGearFreak 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen up!

Once upon a time, an editor said that it's a lot easier to come up with a motto that deals with black and white issues such as vandalism than that deals with featured sound candidates. That editor was right! – wodup – 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I love it. Simple, to the point, and it draws attention to a little-known portion of the Wiki. Kudos for Wodup. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: That's cool. Really unusual motto and link. Chamal talk 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Cheered up himself with ends of verse,
And sayings of philosophers.

Samuel Butler (1612–1680), Hudibras, Part I, Canto iii (1663) ~ This is intended to be humorous (^_^). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Hey, that is pretty funny, and I had no idea those pages existed. That Philosophy thing was fun. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Great idea. People need to learn to relax 'round here. ;) —La Pianista (T•C) 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good to me. Chamal talk 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. FUN!!! ~AH1(TCU) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 01:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is not out to get you.
Relax, smile, and offer someone a helping hand.

Not sure about the first one. As always, suggestions are open. ₰imonKSK 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this promotes a good message so with the current version, support. Simply south not SS, sorry 09:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the first link; it's funny.  :-) This motto is humerous and sends a good, important message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ...good one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. ~AH1(TCU) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 01:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Toot and come in

Ye olde saying.

Toot and come in

Choice 1 Simply south not SS, sorry

  • Support - the better of the two, and it's nice encouragement for new users. Btw, Simply south, you should sign on both the noms. Moving support to Edit 1 —La Pianista (T•C•S) 02:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This one is better. Chamal talk 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. This is the best one. TopGearFreak 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support - reasonably good, though I would prefer if the second link is changed to WP:EDIT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The wording is too childish. ayematthew @ 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I don't pretend to understand why "toot" is in there, but from context I know what you're trying to say, and this set of links is appropriate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened No consensus. Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. SimonKSK 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Toot and come in

Choice 2

Simply south not SS, sorry 01:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per above oppose. ayematthew @ 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened No consensus. Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus. SimonKSK 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Toot and come in

Choice 3 per JulianColton.

  • Support: Focuses on the whole encyclopedia, not just one committee. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above oppose. ayematthew @ 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened No consensus. Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus. SimonKSK 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Toot and come in

Choice 4 pointing to the sign up page.... and the circle is closed. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened No consensus. Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Rejected no consensus. SimonKSK 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What you see is what you get

aah WYSIWYG. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - aah meh. :) —La Pianista (T•C) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Per La Pianista. Maybe save this one for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It doesn't really give a meaning. ₰imonKSK 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A bit blah. No real meaning. TopGearFreak 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you see something in an article that needs to be fixed, you should be bold and edit it, not just take it as it comes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit the system for their own ends.

A simple point, but a valid one in our context, I think. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - This motto has my support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I would never have thought of using the WP:SOAPBOX link. Good linkage. TopGearFreak 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not So Weak Support Ahh... Now I know I'm tired. I couldn't understand it at first. But good motto. Chamal talk 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Good motto and good links. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


→ Welcome to the jungle,
We've got fun and games

How about this? (Sorry SK2) Simply south not SS, sorry 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Think about what the fun and games part really means ;). Anyway It's kinda meh. I knew the links before I even hovered over them. §imonKSK 02:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It get's a minor "meh," but I think it's OK to use. But... shouldn't "fun" be linked to WP:FUN? Just seems counter-intuitive to do it the other way...  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I was thinking that but what should games link to? If we had FUN first, do you think i would mean people come here ffor the games? Simply south not SS, sorry 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Link games to WP:EDIT. I think people are smart enough to know what you're trying to say, and not to think that they're here for games. Besides, many of the things on the WP:FUN page are about making edits. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Welcome to the jungle,
We've got fun and games

Edit 1 per Nutiketaiel.

  • Weak support - better than the last, but still very meh and predictable. I like Easter egg links, the ones that you crack open unsuspectingly. :) —La Pianista (T•C) 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Per my above. Sorry, I live in Cincinnati and am surrounded by Bengals fans, so I know they would enjoy this one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too simple. Again, very predictable. That's why I didn't wan't to use this song as a motto. ₰imonKSK 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Because of the line: "fun and games", Its just too..... happy :p SpitfireTally-ho! 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

→ Whisper the sounds...of silence.

It's from a song, but I don't know the name of it. ~AH1(TCU) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't know. Links can be confusing. §imonKSK 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Assuming good faith does not mean staying silent... I don't really like the message this one sends. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - yes, assuming good faith does not mean keeping quiet. In fact, it can mean the opposite. I've always thought that policy was more extroverted than intro. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: What about using WP:LOVE ... WP:PEACE??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - They don't really seem to go with the quote... Peace does maybe, but not love. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment A Paul Simon song, perhaps? Enigmamsg 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I quite like it, its subtle, makes you stop and think about it for a moment, and yes Enigmaman it is a Paul Simon song: "the sound of silence" SpitfireTally-ho! 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that neither success, nor failure, is ever final.

~AH1(TCU) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - very nice message and links. —La Pianista (T•C) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Good, inspiring message and well chosen links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support Not suer about that last link, but I like it. Icy // ♫ 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support: like icy, not so sure about that last link, but very nice otherwise SpitfireTally-ho! 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved per weak consensus. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_17&oldid=1190127278"