Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

→ The unhappy man, who once has trailed a pen,
Lives not to please himself, but other men;
Is always drudging, wastes his life and blood,
Yet only eats and drinks what you think good.

John Dryden (1631–1700), Prologue to Lee's Caesar Borgia

[I think] HE is talking about himself, Nathaniel Lee, and other poets and playwrigths!
Oh to be so unhappy!!!!

–pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 08:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This seems to be saying anyone who is like the person described is going to be unhappy? Not a very positive message, and not really true either SpitfireTally-ho! 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Wow. That is really depressing. Sorry, but it makes us all seem miserable, and it makes me feel bad to read it. I think I need to go see a shrink now. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The happy man, is one who trails a pen, he lives not to please himself, but other men

Edit 1. I know some people may not support due to the changing of the actual quote... should I still credit it to John Dryden? SpitfireTally-ho! 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It's a positive message, to be sure, but I prefer not to mess around with quotations. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Enjoy Life!

Each person has his/her reason to enjoy life, right? Timlight (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Mottoes usually link to some page in the Wikipedia namespace. As WP:MOTD says, mottoes "...must reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia". Chamal talk 02:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It may have been used before in many mottos, but how about changing Life to Life? Any suggestions for a link for 'enjoy'? Wikiert T S C 12:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Eh, I don't know. This motto seems a little too simplistic for my tastes in the first place. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, but I see very little connection to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy life

Short and straight to the point. Edit 1 Simply south (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The quote is extremely "meh." Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ When we mean to build,
We first survey the plot, then draw the model;
And when we see the figure of the house,
Then must we rate the cost of the erection.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Henry IV, Part II, Act I, Scene iii (1600) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - The quote is very appropriate, and the links range from excellent to passable. Nice contribution. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm quite liking this one, it reflectes how articles grow nicely SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The quote seems appropriate and the links do, too. MathCool10 Sign here! 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would anyone else see WP:PR as an alternative to the last one (currently WP:FAC)? —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - That suggestion would certainly work, though I really don't see anything wrong with the quote as currently linked. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, my logic is this. FAC is used rather as an assessment of whether an article is FA-class. It's like an article's "audition," so to speak. A PR simply lists the pros and cons of an article, which, in my opinion, would be a better interpretation of "rating the cost." —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, good point. OK, I Support La Pianista's suggested revision. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Pianista's Links Icy // ♫ 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – I like the link to WP:PR (and I see it.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice links! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Do not climb heights in order to fight.

This one's bland and kind of dumb I guess, but still... Chamal talk 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

→ A man without trust might as well be dead.

From the sixth book of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, from the voice inside Rand's head. Nice and simple, and fairly self explanatory. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Perhaps it could be split into several sub-links. Wikiert T S C 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I'm open to the idea. What other links would you suggest? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: I'd say leave it as it is, its perfect, asumming good faith is very important, and the simplicity of this motto is all thats needed to drive home the point, any more links and the point will just drown SpitfireTally-ho! 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as it is. It gets the message through strongly without beating around the bush. I likez. Chamal talk 12:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice one. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ very good! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. A good, simple motto. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ To lead is neither to push or pull.

From the third book of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, from the character Leane Sharif. I'm not 100% comfortable with equating Admins with Leaders (which of course they are not), but I think it is OK in the context of the larger point. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support. I agree with your point on the admin thing. Wikiert T S C 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Eh? Why did I put weak? I am silly. Wikiert T S C 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: I agree with you 100% on this, this motto is perfect, in my opinion SpitfireTally-ho! 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Never mind the first link, the other two get a perfect message across. Chamal talk 12:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – It's OK! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ One pretty woman means fun at the dance. Two pretty women mean trouble in the house. Three pretty women mean run for the hills.

From the third book of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, from the character Mat Cauthon. Mat's always a great source for quotes. I almost went with WP:SOCK for the second link, but I thought WP:TAGTEAM got the point across better (after all, not all socks are used for evil). The motto is mostly a general warning about some of the harmful practices that should be avoided on Wikipedia, like gaming the system with tag teams or forming cliques. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, and the waving of a sock on a stick. Good links. As you say, not all socks smell, including mine. Back to the motto you did suggest, perhaps there could be some more links for the second parts of the three sentences...? Wikiert T S C 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I am a little concerned about overcrowding the motto with links. What links would you suggest? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I would not suggest any additional links personally, the ones you have are good and work fine SpitfireTally-ho! 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support as it is. That's very creative linking ;) Don't add more links; there is such a thing as overlinking and it will prevent the original message from getting across properly. Chamal talk 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • More support. Okay, that is fine if there are no more links, the originals were good anyway. Wikiert T S C 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakest support ~ Four or more "pretty" womIn? Is it a harem? Links are very good, but I don't like the quote very much. Just to balance it out a bit more, I would like to say:

    “One "dirty" man means a disgrace [to the world].
    Two [or more] "dirty" men mean a pandemic disease.
    DOWN with men and UP with humYnity!    ”

    –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

    • OK, I'm not going to re-write a direct quotation, and I think your suggested motto is pretty bad and very disparaging towards men, while my motto is not disparaging towards women, but that's not the important thing. As a feminist, I find it rediculous when people spend so much time going on and on about the stupid little semantic battles like spelling "women" as "womxn" or whatever other random letter from the alphabet strikes your fancy and thinking they're doing something good. There are so many real battles to fight, like pay equity, real sexual harassment, availability of affordable child care, ensuring adequate, paid maternity leave, inadequate representation of women at high levels of government and business, health care coverage of women's health issues, ensuring more resources for researching women's health issues than for viagra and so many other real problems. I don't have time for the cosmetic battles. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It was not my opinion on the matter, which would take several volumes... I tried to balance it out, and I was kidding too. I know that there is nothing to laugh about, and I agree with you completely. I'm sorry. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's OK, I over-reacted to your response. Please accept my apology for not being entirely civil in my response to you. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) NO problem ... NO need to apologize! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus, ignoring Wikiert's second vote. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ A pig painted gold is still a pig.

From the second book of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, from the character Mat Cauthon. Not a bad little quote, I feel, reminding us to be on the lookout for one of the most harmful practices of vandals and other Wikinogoodniks- inserting fake references to assert notability or cover a false article or statement. I know some of us don't like repetition, but it kind of drives the point home in this one. In case it wasn't clear, I've been in a very Wheel of Timey mood lately, so there will probably be a few more of these mottos. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Nice. Wikiert T S C 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Sure, looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ You have convinced me! Neutral: I'm an inclusionist. I think that all humYn knowledge, which is very poor, must be included in WikipediA. I'm sorry, but I can not support this one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I, too, am an inclusionist, but some things fail notability even by my standards. That's not to say that such information shouldn't be included on Wikipedia, just that some things don't need their own articles. I think we can all agree that false references are bad, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reminds me of the monkey.... Simply south (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Monkey? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Archive 16. Simply south (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, that monkey. Yes, the quote does get the same point across. Different links, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I ain't gettin' too close to one of them pigs... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
lol – check out this one if you haven't before (^___^). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Really good! Creative links about topics that we don't hear much from MOTD. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Creative. Enigmamsg 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ In wars, boy, fools kill other fools for foolish causes.

From the first book of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, from the character Thom Merrilin. I think it's a pretty good quote that applies well to Wikipedia. I'm not 100% satisfied with the "other fools" link, so I'm definitely open to suggestions on that one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. S'alright. Wikiert T S C 18:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: whilst its very true, it'd be nice if it could include something about dispute resolution etc, however as it is an actual quotation I appreciate that this might be hard SpitfireTally-ho! 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Yeah, I really can't add anything without changing the quote, which I am loath to do. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this one. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. It isn't bad, but I'm a little bit "bored" with mottos about vandalism, edit war, etcetera. I think we should promote more positive things. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), King Richard III, Act V, Scene iv (1623) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: I likez.... oh noes! I likez vialashun! Ok, so it shows how important it is, and the repetition helps to deliver the point more strongly. Something like WP:CLEANUP would also be good (but fine as it is though). Chamal talk 10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Well, I am usually OK with repitition to drive a point home, but this one is pretty dry... oh, and I took the liberty of capitalizing the second "A". Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I disagree with our esteemed leader on this (may he live forever, may his name forever ring in our halls, etc etc), and I have to agree with Chamal that in this case the repetition works well SpitfireTally-ho! 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't quite agree that he's the leader. Simply south (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, geez you're right, I meant to say god, my mistake :p SpitfireTally-ho! 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Not sure on that wither errr either Simply south (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
          • C'mon, South, nobody really thinks of me as a leader. I may have been referred to as Editor-in-Chief of MotD, and I may have proclaimed myself God-Emperor, but that's all in good fun. I have no actual authority, though questioning my divine powers MAY be punishable by the Death of a Thousand Edits.  :-) Just think of me as a modern day Emperor Norton. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It's alright, but the repetition dries it up. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

Once more. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this has potential, but I'm slightly confused. How does us (in relation to) the "future"/new members have to do with us vandalizing/deleting pages and the deletion policy? Icy // ♫ 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply Can you suggest an edit to it? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Umm, I'm no good at that, but I'm thinking you should keep the motto about one topic...? (Sorry for being useless >_<) Icy // ♫ 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The motto is good, but the links are confusing. It makes vandalism sound like test edits because of the phrase without amendments. Also, the delete link makes it look like we vandalize articles and then delete them. I'll try to think of some better links, or someone else probably will. Chamal talk 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but I can't think of any set of links that would adequately tie it to Wikipedia without either contradicting itself or being very very confusing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Super Strongest Support!!! WhAt A qUoTeeeeeee!!! Truly words of wisdom and intelligence! This is an example that must be followed! If you don't like the set of links, we may use Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia? for present and The future of Wikipedia for future. Other links links seem good to me and (IMHO) they work fine with both versions. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

→ We often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

How about this? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I agree with Chamal's statement above regarding the problems with the linking in this phrase, but I can't think of any better links. I'll try, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - per consensus or no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Everybody likes a kidder, but nobody lends him money

Well, I thought I’d give MOTD one more try. So here’s a quote from Arthur Miller. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Ah, but nobody likes a vandal, so that statement is contradictory. SimonKSK 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support – I like the quote and I'm a fan of Arthur, one of the greatest playwrights of all time, but I do not like the link for kidder because nobody likes vandals and vandalism (excluding vandals, of course).
    What about using: WP:BJAODN, WP:BALLS, WP:FUN, WP:LAME, or WP:STUPID for it??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not many like a kidder, but nobody lends him money

Perhaps now. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Still oppose - If you say "No, but", it basically means "Yes". The motto doesn't make much sense. Either way, it's bland. Sorry. SimonKSK 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – (IMHO) It has no value if we do not use the original quote. A better version, which I do NOT support (^__^), is: Nobody likes a kidder and lends him money. –pjoef (talk • contribs)

Not many like a kidder, therefore nobody lends him money.

Now? --MikemoralSock (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support Better, but a bit obvious and bland. Oh god, I hope nobody says, "Slow News Day"... SimonKSK 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It's not really a quote, it's just an obvious statement. I don't think any more changes will do any good. But it was a nice thought --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment It's more of a paraphrasing. I guess if the motto goes nowhere, I will find another quote. Also, sorry I was using my sock, I was organizing my archives. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's kind of meh, and it makes it look as if the rest of us are working for awards. I have to agree with Soccer5525 on this one. Sorry. Chamal talk 02:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nobody likes vandals, except other vandals, and we don't care what they like. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – as per me above. –pjoef (talk • contribs)

no Declined all per consensus or no consensus, recycle Reopened e3. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

→ "Who's that then?"
"I dunno, must be a King."
"Why?"
"He hasn't got shit all over him."

And now for something completely different. I was going for a reminder to everyone that being an Admin is not a big deal and that, really, they're all editors just like us. Well, not like me, as your God-Emperor and Editor-in-Chief, and not like my Empress and Demigod, La Pianista, but like the rest of you.  :-) Anyway, I know some of you are going to have a problem with the profanity, but it really is relatively mild compared to some of the past proposals including profanity that have been shot down, and I think that tiny bit of profanity will itself serve as a reminder to everyone that we are not censored. Thoughts? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support- I chuckled when I read this. I absoulutely love Monty Python! And I totally agree with you about your feelings towards admins and profanity. I personally have no problem with the quote including shit, and it makes it more funny! --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - lulzy, in true Nutiket fashion. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like the idea, but the second link doesn't make much sense. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: As Julian said, the second link doesn't make much sense the way it is given, but supporting the idea. Chamal talk 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I was intending it to be a demonstration that Adminship is not a big deal by pointing out that that is how you recognize an Admin. Kind of like how most of the peasants (especially the Anarcho-Syndicatalist ones) don't seem to think Arthur's Kingship is a big deal. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment When did you change the second link? I liked it much better before! --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: lol good one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

→ No one can think clearly when his fists are clenched.

I've always maintained that a break is in order once people start to get angry at each other on wikipedia SpitfireTally-ho! 09:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Linking WP:BREAK to "fists are clenched" equates a Wiki-break with preparation for violence. Not a great message, I think. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Blah, It's not meant to say that at all. What would you say to just linking the entire thing to WP:BREAK? Or is that still suffering the same problem? SpitfireTally-ho! 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Nutiel's links make it all seem better. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

→ No one can think clearly when his fists are clenched.

Edit 1 - Per my above suggestion. I think this one maintains the spirit of the original quote (that you can't think clearly when you're pissed off) without disparaging Wiki-breaks. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support I would trout you for beating me to the links if you were not the sole reason for my position as Demigod...Your Royal Elegance. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I thank you for your restraint, Your Serene Highness. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Nuti ☺ –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ooh, smiley for me? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure (^__^)! Every time I think of you, I remember that delicious ice cream, and I smile (^____^). That was the first time I had an ice cream on the Internet ~ lol ~ and for free too (^___^)! No doubt, it was a great idea, so thank you again for that! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


→ Wikipedia: multilingual, Web-based, free-content, collaborative, voluntary.... WE NEED YOU!

Another excerpt taken from Wikipedia:About. The original text is:

Wikipedia, the multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia, a collaborative project created by volunteers from all around the world; anyone can edit it.

I tried to turn it into a motto, and I am not sure if it runs well. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's good, and I like that the links are all to the mainspace, since the quote was taken from the... wikipediaspace (or whatever you call it). I think the "voluntary" link would also be better off with a mainspace link, though, to keep the theme throughout. What about "voluntary"? As for the last link, I don't think that WP:TMM was a very inspired choice; why not link it directly to Special:UserLogin/signup? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: after 4 links I was a little bit tired (^__^) ... I'm not sure about your Volunteerism, Nutiel, — may I call you Nutiel, or do you prefer Nuti? (^___^) — because there is little difference between them, but Special:UserLogin/signup is perfect! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Given the option, I would prefer "Nuti" to "Nutiel." Thanks for asking.  :-) I think the Volunteerism link works because it both points out that participation is voluntary and, right in the first line of the current version of the article says it all- "Volunteerism is the willingness of people to work on behalf of others without being motivated by financial or material gain." It seems to me that, in alot of ways, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose What the point of having most of those links if they just redirect you to what the mean? The words in these quotes should have hidden meanings that have to do with Wikipedia. They're very redundant, and it's clear what the meaning is without the links. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply - There's nothing wrong with being straightforward every once in a while. Not everything has to be Easter Eggs. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

→ By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Just a little fun. Maybe not very good. SpitfireTally-ho!

  • Weak Support. I'm perplexed about this one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I see what you're going for, but the connections are a little tenuous. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - There's nothing blatantly wrong with it, but I'm not sure of what it's trying to say. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support It's a bit "meh", but I'm oddly fond of it. Icy // ♫ 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

→ I know a lot about love. I've seen it, centuries and centuries of it, and it was the only thing that made watching this world bearable. All those wars. Pain, lies, hate... It made me want to turn away and never look down again. But when I see the way that mankind loves... You could search to the furthest reaches of the universe and never find anything more beautiful.

A nice soppy one, although, maybe it's... Well, vote as you see fit, SpitfireTally-ho! 04:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Two links to WP:Wikipedia ... but it's a good one at last. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I like it, but the second link to WP:WIKIPEDIA has to go. I'm fine with double-linking if it helps drive home a point, but this one throws off the entire meaning of the quote since WP:WIKIPEDIA is first linked to "world" and second linked to "universe." I don't think that "universe" needs to be linked at all, but if you do want to link it, it needs to be something else. "Universe" maybe, or something like that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Sorry, but it seems more like rambling than a motto. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Commment Removed double link as both the supports so far requested it to be so. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Then I'll change my view to "Support." Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

→ I’m no lord. I’ve more respect for myself than that.

From the fifth book of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, from the character Mat Cauthon. I almost made that last link to one of my favorites, WP:NOBIGDEAL, but I thought this way was a little more original and a little more appropriate. What I'm trying to get across is that a person does not have to be an Admin to make great contributions to the Wiki, and that we should all have a little more respect for "ordinary" users and their contributions. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support! Yeah! Go non-admins! Wikiert T S C 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Whilst we should have more respect for ordinary users, we should not gain that respect by demeaning others, if you know, what I mean?
  • Strong Oppose: I agree that adminship is no big deal, but the second link kind of degrades adminship (not saying that this is intentional, but that's how the link makes it look). There are plenty of good admins about that do a great job for Wikipedia. I know there are morons too, but a lot of people are doing a thankless job with everybody spotting their mistakes and nobody looking at the things they do to keep this place as it is, and I don't want to see them being put down. Chamal talk 12:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I'm not sure whether it was intentional or not. I've seen alot of blatant stupidity and reprehensible actions by Admins lately, so maybe I'm just inadvertantly expressing my disdain for all of them through motto form. I dunno. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • We have a Sinhalese proverb that translates to something like cutting off your own nose to revenge yourself upon your face. We are part of the same 'community', and putting down part of it (intentionally or otherwise) will harm all of us. I suggest we think about that before we let our personal feelings overcome the realities here. After all, MOTD is about "fostering a sense of community" and our mottoes are supposed to "reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia". In any case, a whole group is not responsible for something that a few of them have done. Chamal talk 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply - Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; I like that. I didn't know that that saying originated in Sinhalese. Learn something new every day. In any case, the metaphor fits in alot of ways, actually, since I could cut off my nose and get by without too much trouble- I'd probably look a little funny, and I'd have to breath through my mouth, and I'd have no sense of smell, but with a few adjustments to my lifestyle I'd be fine. And if my nose acted like an Admin, I probably would cut it off. But, I digress. I hereby formally withdraw this motto, per Chamal's important and totally correct observations. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Hmm.. I didn't know that saying was known by a lot of people. Anyway, that was my honest opinion about this. No hard feelings, I hope :) Chamal talk 02:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
            • No, no hard feelings, though I was thinking about promoting you to Minister of Making Nutiket Feel Bad.  :-P Seriously, you're right, and I never should have nominated the motto in the first place. I'll just keep my feelings about Admins bottled deep inside... untill they EXPLODE!  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn. Simply south (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Standby for action! Anything could happen in the next half an hour

Simply south (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: It sounds like you sit looking at your watchlist but thinking about something that might happen over at recent changes... I see the connection, but it seems weird when you say it like that. And did a Stingray seriously say that? :P Chamal talk 12:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine, i corrected that first link. It was a puppet series by Gerry Anderson. Like Thunderbirds. You could see what i was trying to get at but can you suggest ways to improve that? And Commander Shore says it at the start Simply south (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought so... :) I'm trying to think of some other links or a way to fix what I said, that's why I haven't supported or opposed yet. Chamal talk 13:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there is "We are about to launch stingray" in between the two but i can't remember it like that, sort of. Simply south (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... how about Wikipedia:Patrols for the first link, and either Special:Watchlist or Special:Recentchanges for the second? Chamal talk 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Simply south (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
And i do know of an admin who is a talking squid... Simply south (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this one, it's exciting. It makes me feel like some kind of intrepid adventurer or something when I'm on a Recent Change Patrol. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! This is a good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: per my suggestion. Chamal talk 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ When you're on the Titanic and you're manning the life boats, you don't stop to yell at the iceberg.

Better links? Maybe change second link to WP:REVERT? Chamal talk 06:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually it would seem to me that WP:ARTICLERESCUE would better fit this quote but only as the middle link, not sure about the other two links though. Simply south (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That one won't do unless we change all the links. Chamal talk 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what i was meaning. Simply south (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good 'nuff for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I am fine with the current version. However, if you guys insist on changing it to include WP:ARTICLERESCUE, I suggest replacing the last link with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and the first link to WP:AFD. The quote would therefore read- "→ When you're on the Titanic and you're manning the life boats, you don't stop to yell at the iceberg." ... ... Hey, you know, that actually sounds pretty snappy now that I look at it. That set of links would have my Support, too. The original is still very good, though. I'm up for either; what do you guys think? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about the removal of the first link? I'm feeling minimalist today. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either this set of links or the ones Nutiket brought up. Pianista - I don't know - would work either way, maybe. Icy // ♫ 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved original per consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ When you're on the Titanic and you're manning the life boats, you don't stop to yell at the iceberg.

Edit 1 per suggested overlord's addition of links of my suggestion. Simply south (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, per my above, but as I said, I really like them both, so we can go with whatever everyone else wants. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! I like both versions, but this one is my favourite. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.

Maybe. BW21.--12hctawkcalB (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I like it and I see the message, but I worry that some readers may see it as a repudiation of WP:BOLD. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Confused Weak Support I'm not really sure what to say about this one...it's just sorta meh. Doesn't catch my eye or do anything for me. Maybe with some tweaking with the links and it'll be better. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply If you're confused, oppose it. BW21.--12hctawkcalB (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
What does "BW21" mean? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's his old username, I think. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply 12hctawkcalB is my alternate account, my main account is Blackwatch21 and BW21 is just something I put at the end of every message. BW21.--12hctawkcalB (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Angry Mob Reply - I knew it! He's a sock! Everybody hit him with sticks! Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Notice how the name is backwards of Blackwatch21!? BW21.--12hctawkcalB (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. That's the evidence that you're not just an ordinary sock, but a sock from the evil Mirror Universe, where everyone is evil and Spock has a beard. Thus, we beat you with sticks. It makes perfect sense if you think about it.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Perhaps on a slow news day. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I do like the message, but as Nutiket says, some might interpret it as a discouragement of boldness. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ... even if &#147;Act like a man of action, think like a man of thought&#148; is better than that (I'm kidding (^___^)). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds

  • Oppose - I do not like it in its current form- even with large numbers of edits, there will be vandalism (indeed, some of them will BE vandalism). I suggest linking "hard work" to WP:CVU or WP:RCP to more directly relate to the vandalism link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds

Better? --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ These are the faces of evil. You must conquer each.

My last CD-i motto fared better than I had expected, so here is another one. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm not 100% comfortable with referring to sock puppets as evil (some of my favorite people are sock puppets), but at the same time I'm the one who always says that a little poetic exageration is OK, so I guess it works. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support + lol –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Ab ovo usque ad mala
(“From the egg to the apples” or “From beginning to end”)

Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65 BC-8 BC), Sermonum Liber primus, Satire 1.3, Omnibus hoc vitium est ("Everyone has this flaw") (35 BC). It is based on the Roman main meal typically beginning with an egg dish and ending with fruit, similar to the American English idiom "soup to nuts". It means "from beginning to end". The links are about the development od an article, from Stub to FA. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - There's nothing blatantly wrong with it, but the FA-related mottoes do get a bit boring. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's kind of nice, but also rather bland and unoriginal. If there's a better way to do the links...? (I'm not much of a motto writer :\) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceUnshattered (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 March 2009
  • Conditional support. Definitely needs better links. If the change has better links, then I will definitely give my support. Wikiert T S C 21:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose: I still think we let the latin ones run away a little, otherwise its not a bad motto SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for a Slow as Molasses News Day. Btw, if we do happen to be searching for alternative links, I wouldn't advocate a WP:WC and WP:RETIRE pairing. Better bland than weird. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


→ Beginnings are usually scary and endings are usually sad, but it's everything in between that makes it all worth living

I really like this motto; it took me a while to create but I hope you guys like it as much as me! --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - but is that last link necessary? —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the last link is nesscary because it's saying what the the barnstars are worth for --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I like the sentiment, but I'm not too keen on the idea that Barnstars are the only thing that make Wikipedia worth editing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - On further reflection, I agree with La Pianista that the last link is unnecessary. If nothing else, that link serves to emphasize my concerne above. I strongly suggest removing it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support but would rather have the link to barnstars replaced or removed, because that really isn't everything in between. Apart from that, I think it's a great motto. Icy // ♫ 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, barnstars are rather nice, Icy - tokens of appreciation when used sparingly and meaningfully. I'd much rather WP:BARN than the hackneyed WP:EDIT. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree that barnstars are great, and that that link would be better than linking to WP:EDIT, but I just... Meh. Icy // ♫ 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with you icy when you said you would rather have the link to barnstars replaced (I have never recieved a barnstar *chortle* (of course, thats nothing to do with this)), I actually made an edit 2 (just below) to this vein, although, maybe you might not like it as I linked it to WP:community, rather then just WP:edit. Anyway, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose no offence, but, I just really really really don't like the link to Barnstars, its not reflective of what we "do" at wikipedia, otherwise its a good motto, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved original with no consensus on removal of the last link. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Beginnings are usually scary and endings are usually sad, but it's everything in between that makes it all worth living.

Edit 1 per The King and I. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose No offence to your Anna or you, Nutiketaiel, but the link to barnstars just seems... well, It doesn't strike me to be reflective of what we "do" at wikipedia SpitfireTally-ho! 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply No offense taken. See, the reason I think the link wo Barnstars works is because they are awards for doing "what we 'do' at wikipedia" exceptionally well. The Barnstars aren't an end in and of themselves, but they are recognition for doing a great job at the various things we all come here to do, from editing articles to fighting vandalism to MotD. (Note- I knew I'd find a way to get this on the actual nom page. Everybody who wants in, there's discussion going on here about a new update to the MotD Barnstar, comments appreciated). Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Beginnings are usually scary and endings are usually sad, but it's everything in between that makes it all worth living.

Edit 2. This one is, in my opinion, the best option, per Icy, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Neutral - There's nothing really wrong with it, but I prefer Edit 1. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there such a thing as strong neutral? Simply south (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • There is now. I invented it; does it not amaze you? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Illogical things do not amaze me... >.> —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
          • It's not illogical. I am strong in firm in my conviction that I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I actually like this one. Perhaps a sense of community is more important than barnstars, however sweet and meaningful they can be. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Beginnings are usually scary and endings are usually sad, but it's everything in between that makes it all worth living

  • ARgZ Support! Not another one! This one is however quite good SpitfireTally-ho! 20:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Another Strong Neutral, for the same reasons cited above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Beginnings are usually scary and endings are usually sad, but it's everything in between that makes it all worth living

Yes yes, we are getting another one, edit 4, but this i think explains things well - actually, should that be WP:COLLAB or WP:COLLABORATE? Simply south (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Another Strong Neutral, for the same reasons cited above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've stopped it with the new ideas

Simply south (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - joke nomination. Simply south (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet another new idea

Simply south (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support: or this Spitfire :  Chat  09:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • lol + smiles + another great idea + (^___^) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - joke nomination. Simply south (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New idea

Simply south (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - joke nomination. Simply south (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New idea

Simply south (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support: We need far more genius like this in the MOTD Spitfire :  Chat  09:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Eureka for all 4: We need far more epic failz like this in teh MOTD :D Chamal :  Chat  11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Are these supposed to be scheduled for four consecutive days? p.s. why has everyone adopted Pedro's sig? Is it for April Fool's? Queenie 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Wikipedia is not the place for new ideas. Take that craziness over to Conservapedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • lol + smiles + great idea + (^___^) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - joke nomination. Simply south (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

→ We need change.

President Barack Obama. 男らしい冬 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: by WP:userpage, do you mean WP:EDIANS? SpitfireTally-ho! 08:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Weak Support - If the first link is changed as Spitfire suggests, this would have my weak support. This quote, though dry and boring, is moderately appropriate for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per political bias... –Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but I don't see how we (wikipedia) need "change" as such, change would suggest that we would be replacing what already existed at wikipedia Spitfire :  Chat  21:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Wikipedia always needs change- that's what editing is all about! We're founded on change. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - neutrality concerns, vague message. Even a link to WP:EDIANS instead of WP:USERPAGE would still have my oppose. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

→We need change.

Edit 1. I changed userpage to edians. I meant for the we to stand for wikipedians. 男らしい冬 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • comment: Without change, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is today. Without change, Wikipedia wouldn't improve. I look at this motto more of a historical motto than just political bias. This motto to me is a sign of hope. That is nothing boring to me. --男らしい冬 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Still oppose - Sorry, but I find myself agreeing with La Pianista. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Per my above. I don't think the neutrality concerns are really a big problem. The election is over, and we link to quotes from controversial political figures from time to time. My only objection is that the quote is dry and boring; President Obama isn't much of an orator. He's no Jed Bartlet. Or maybe he just needs some better speachwriters. However, the quote is appropriate for Wikipedia, as the nominator (sorry, your username just shows up as a bunch of boxes on my screen so I can't use your name) points out. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

→ You can`t start a fire without a spark.

Another slightly simply one, I know we get quite a lot of FA related mottos, but... SpitfireTally-ho! 09:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - It's fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with WP:FA related mottos; after all, that's why we approve so many of them. Still, the quote could also work with links that describe how Wikipedia as a whole grows from spark to fire instead of a single article. I can't think of a set of links right off the top of my head that would express that, though... If anyone else comes up with a set of links that express that idea well, that would have my strong support. Until then, though, there's nothing wrong with the quote as currently linked. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Sure. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wasn't there another like this? Was it "From a spark there shall rise a flame"??? SimonKSK 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: A quick Ctrl+F throgh the archives for "fire" turns nothing up, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I said "flame". >_>. SimonKSK 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I like "The Boss"! + hOt tIp (^___^): for searching through the archives, I really recommend you ALL to try this one out. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

→ You, you and you... panic. The rest of you, come with me.

Umm... no comments. Well, just one; looks really dumb to me, I don't know why I'm posting this. Chamal talk 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment- Yeah umm...this one is interesting...with some tweaking with the links, it could be better I guess. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 15:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support- Actually, I kind of like it. It welcomes contributions from and cooperation between constructive editors, while telling those bad guys where to shove it. I'm not 100% satisfied with the link for "panic," but I can't think of anything better, so let's run with it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Support! I'll come with you. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, this is pretty good. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support; I agree with the points that Nutiketaiel made. Although the "panic" link does not seem necessary, it does not hurt the motto's (high) quality. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Middly normal to strong support. Not the best motto in the history of the universe, but it is very good. Wikiert T S C 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

→ A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), King Lear, Act III, Scene ii (1623) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongest Possible Oppose - You just referred to the Recent Change Patrollers as infirm.  :-( Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Read the first link. That explains why this shouldn't go up as a motto viewable by anyone. Chamal talk 02:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Oh, gods, I didn't even click on the first link when I went through it. That essay is... inflammatory, to say the least. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Per Nutiketaiel and Chamal N. Wikiert T S C 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that what Pjoef meant was that vandalism is infirm from being countered by the RC patrol. Unfortunately, in its current form, the motto would not be understood as such by the casual reader; I will have to oppose. May I suggest WP:NOTCOOL or WP:VDNM? If the links are improved, the motto will have my conditional weak support. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye cruel world

As simple as it gets and probably not as ggood an idea as the others... Simply south (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - this falls into the category of the bland that I would normally support under the "Slow News Day Act" (issued by Nutiketaiel the Terrible), but I perhaps have a natural tendency against vandal mottoes. Not that all vandal-related mottoes are bad, but the blandness of them just seem magnified. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I see where you're coming from, but I agree with Pianista. We should avoid mocking the vandals. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't know i was mocking vandals. Simply south (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think you're mocking the vandals, but linking vandals to "cruel world" seems a little over the top. I also agree with La Pianista the Great that the motto is pretty bland. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw. Simply south (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rejected - withdrawn. Queenie 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

→ This land does not belong to one person, but to all. Let us together build this world, that we may share in the days of peace.

I changed it in a minor way from the original: "day > land", "man > person" and "rebuild > build", hope this is ok? Any ideas for a link for "days of peace" or "together"? SpitfireTally-ho! 06:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Marx? lol –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think you need a link for "together" or "days of peace," as they seem pretty self explanatory in the context of the quote and the other links (especially together; linking that would just make it look a little cluttered). If you insist, though, how about "days of peace"? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - good quote, although change the WP:WIKIPEDIA link directly to WP:About. MathCool10 Sign here! 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/May 8, 2009 per an sneachta. Queenie 12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Age quod agis
(“Do what you are doing” or “Do well whatever you do”)

Source unknown. Used as the motto of several Catholic schools. Nominated in Do what you do, and win $100 while you're at it! by AH1 and rejected. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I see what you're going for here, but frankly it just seems like a random latin statement if we can't source it. Just something John-icus Doe-icus said on his way to the forum. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with Nutiketaiel. I would never have known what this quote even means had you not provided a translation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Apart from being another Latin motto, neither the linking nor the actual qoute seem paticulary inspired, in my opinion, sorry SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Perhaps too archaic for the average layman outside the Vatican. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per teh whitey. Queenie 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Looking for extreme possibilities may make you blind to the probable explanation right in front of you.

I've made a lot of self reverts after getting mixed up... Chamal talk 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - This quote sends a very good and strong message. It's well chosen. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: A great message, I'm always keen on Motto's that advocate this approach to assuming good faith: it's not a good idea to always assume good faith with real vandals, but it's equally a bad idea to look for vandals in every edit, a great motto. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - This is why we need our little AGF Chamal here to keep our wits together. Nice one. :) (Also, I added a period. Immaculate grammar is my favorite fetish.) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved due to strange weather patterns. Simply south (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

→ If you need instructions on how to get through the hotels, check out the enclosed instruction book.

A reference to the oft-parodied Hotel Mario CD-i game --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 03:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Somewhere between weak and normal support. Sounds okay, but the links have been used a lot before. Basically, it's an original motto with unoriginal links. Otherwise, as I said, okay. Wikiert T S C 13:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Not a very interesting one, but good message. So, works for me I guess. Chamal talk 13:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Mario is a "classic" of video games! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - The links are good, but the quote itself is a little... bizarre... to apply to Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I couldn't agree more with Nutiketaiel, BootlickerBoots for sale! 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope she made lotsa spaghetti... er, I mean Support. I think enough people are familiar with Hotel Mario through YouTube. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Though I myself am far from a gamer, I'll accept that perhaps this is not so bizarre for...normal editors. ;) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per being battered with many snowballs. Simply south (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You will never stand taller than when you kneel to help a child.

I like this one, personally SpitfireTally-ho! 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - This one looks good to me. I can see how some would have problems with referring to new editors as children, but it's a metaphor, and it seems apt. I say go for it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Also likes it. It's a nice message, I don't think it gets brought up all that much. Like it ;). Icy // ♫ 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: really good one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per the blizzard. Simply south (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Miracles don't come cheap.

Probably not the best, but I'm feeling bored now :P Chamal talk 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - It's not bad. The quote and links are pretty straight-forward. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Though it's a sad day when featured articles are considered the equivalent of a miracle. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support and comment. Sounds okay, but I agree with Juliancolton on the FA bit. Wikiert T S C 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Aww shucks, guys, it's just a little poetic license. A teensy weensy metaphor. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Very simple but effective. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice, straight-forward message (added period here, too). Although a true miracle would be the day that I write an FA. ;) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per snow. Simply south (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


→ You had me at hello

Thought it was pretty cool --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Kinda cute, not as meh as I thought it might have been. Maybe for a slow news day. ;) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I quite like this one, actually. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Yes, it's pretty cool. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm actually OK with this one, on any news day. The Welcoming Committee is an important project, and it's nice to draw attention to them. And it is kind of cute (not as cute as La Pianista, of course). Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: This one made me smile, also good as it draws attention to the Welcoming Committee, always a good thing, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Great- it's snapp-ay! Wikiert T S C 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Mmmm, not so sure about this one, again, feel free to oppose, please suggest new links, specially for "little security", cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Conditional Weak Oppose - First off, I don't really like the links. You're implying that WP:IAR and the rest of the policies and guidelines are mutually exclusive, and they're not. They live together in a complex harmony riddled with consonants and vowels. Anyway, secondly, I'm pretty sure this has been used before. That's why my "weak oppose" is conditional; if it HAS been used before, it would change to "strong oppose." Oh, and we always feel free to oppose every motto. You really don't need to invite us to do so every time you post one.  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: don't miss this edit summary ;p. I did think of what you mention about IAR and the Policies and guidelines being the "same" and my suggesting they were not, but couldn't find a better link for "little security". As for having been used before, it may have been, but not with the same wording, so may be hard to find :\, so for now I'd just leave it as "Strong Oppose". SpitfireTally-ho! 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I'm having trouble thinking of a good link for it, too, but I don't think we should approve it in its current form. It just sends a bad message, in my opinion. I herevy change my opinion to Oppose. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support!!! How about adding WP:Goals (Wikipedia:Five pillars) to deserve neither??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - I can't say I really see the connection there. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

→ Only one important thing has happened in the last three days, and that is that nothing has happened.

What, we are out of mottoes again? I can't believe how every time I visit this page they seem to be running out. So here's another Sherlock Holmes motto, not because I think it's great but because it seems we need some. So it's probably not the best :P Chamal talk 11:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Sorry, Chamal, but to me it seems to send the message that nothing happens here at Wikipedia, which is just not true! Lots of stuff happens! Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know. Things are back to normal now, so I'll withdraw it. Can the reviewer just close this per WP:SNOW (which it will obviously be) or on nominator's request? Cheers. Chamal talk 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn. Simply south (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Victory comes from harmony.

Maybe. BW21.--12hctawkcalB (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Good message, but it's a bit too direct. Lacking a note of cleverness, to me. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nothing wrong with being direct. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with Nutiketaiel that being direct is fine, and I agree with La Pianista that the message is good, so SpitfireTally-ho! 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support per La Pianista. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Sic semper tyrannīs

My first one...probably not original... Also: Sic semper Dooku ♪♫The New Mikemoraltalkcontribs 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Hate to oppose your first motto, but why are we calling admins as tyrants? Shouldn't it be Sic semper tyrannis, btw? Chamal talk 07:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not all admins are tyrants. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Despite their appearance, not all admins are tyrants. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: I think it's a good motto that deserves to be used, but we need to change the link to point to vandals/vandalism instead of administrators (e.g.: WP:ABUSE; WP:-(; WP:AOLIP;...). Also, this phrase, without the context, is not clear. I think it's better to use the long form, "sic semper evello mortem tyrannīs" ("thus always death happens/occurs/comes to tyrants"). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • While I Strongly Oppose the quote as originally linked, Pjoef's suggestion of WP:ABUSE would have my Weak Support. However, I do not think we need to use the long form, as Sic Semper Tyrannis is one of the most famous latin phrases in the world. Anyone who doesn't know that one is a true philistine, especially since there is an arrow link right next to it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've never heard that latin phrase before. Simply south (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I really need to learn to stop opening my big mouth. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Queenie 12:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Sic semper tyrannis

Edit 1- Per Pjoef's suggested linking, above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support- Per my above. This link is definitely an improvement over the original, though I still don't think it is 100% suited to the quote. I can't find anything better, though. Additionally, I remain strongly opposed to the use of the long form of the quote, as this form is its iconic version. I'm sure Brutus would agree (if he did actually say it). Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral - A significant improvement over the original, but it's rather dull. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: to be honest with you, I think we're going a little mad on the latin ones. Also, this ones quite dull as Juliancolton said, SpitfireTally-ho! 04:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Queenie 12:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Don’t ever wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it.

I quite like this one, note a troll is a disruptive editor who attempts to provoke violent response from other editors, currently I am linking to soft redirects, should I just provide a direct link to meta? SpitfireTally-ho! 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • suppport. It fits. Simply south (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support. It made me chuckle, points awarded. Malpass93 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Feels a little bare of links at the end, but nice message. Icy // ♫ 21:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, though I agree that the links could use some improvements. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Looks great the way it is. Please do not add links to the last part- you'd just be linking to make the motto more blue, as the quote already says all it needs to. I personally prefer direct links to Metawiki most of the time, but there is nothing wrong with the soft redirects either. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW for one month from now. Simply south (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

→ I cannot believe that the purpose of life is to be happy. I think the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference you lived at all.

Meh, sure someone can think up better links? Specially for "Happy"? Quite long I know. PS:the edit summary will be to long if you try to edit this section just delete it, press preview, and then save SpitfireTally-ho! 07:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. At first glance it seems to be a treaty more than a motto, but I like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It's an excellent motto, but you're right about the links. I can't think of any better links off hand, though, so if I do I'll get back to you. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support on the condition that a better link for "happy" is found. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe wikipedia:ENJOY? The only thing is, that really tests whether one actualy believes in this motto SpitfireTally-ho! 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps "happy" would be better off unlinked. After all, every word doesn't need a link, the rest of the links establish the motto's relevance to Wikipedia, and the meaning of the term "happy" in this context is pretty clear. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

  • Support, if [[Happiness|happy]] is unlinked. Icy // ♫ 15:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Queenie 11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 30, 2009. Queenie 11:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Rather than be less
Cared not to be at all.

John Milton (1608–1674), Paradise Lost, Book II (1667) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Clarification Request - This is another one of those that is difficult for me to interpret without context. I mean, I can guess the context since it comes from Paradise Lost, but I can't be certain. Could you clarify, please? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It's about ambition and eternal. Satan asks his lieutenants how to fight the will of God. The consultation begun, and Moloch, the fallen angel, horrid king, besmeared with blood / of human sacrifice, (from Book I), counsels open war because he think there is nothing to lose, and the most that God can do is to destroy them.

...and by what best way,
Whether of open war or covert guile,
We now debate. Who can advise may speak."
    He ceased; and next him Moloch, sceptred king,
Stood up–the strongest and the fiercest Spirit
That fought in Heaven, now fiercer by despair.
His trust was with th' Eternal to be deemed
Equal in strength, and rather than be less
Cared not to be at all; with that care lost
Went all his fear: of God, or Hell, or worse,
He recked not, and these words thereafter spake:–
    "My sentence is for open war....

Generally, I'm not inclined to transform the original text, but we can change the verb tense from simple past to simple present.

BAD NEWS /o\!!!
Dear Nutiketaiel,
I hope you are joking, and that you are not feeling put down by me. It was not my intention at all /o\!!! We all have some complexes that are not under conscious control. We each have different skills and abilities, and yYou are highly intelligent, generous, open-minded, nice –I'm thinking to that delicious ice cream (^_^)– creative,.... Please, treat me as an equal, and appreciate yourself for all who you are, and others for the same reason and without competing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was kidding, Pjoef. Relax; I don't think you're superior to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
GOOD NEWS!!! I did not sleep well that night (^__^). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Ah, I love to gloat. Like most of Pjoef's mottoes, though, the wording is a little archaic, but it makes perfect sense to me. Modern translation: "It's better to be less than nothing at all." —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Upon further thought, weak support. The fact that some other users don't understand the motto perhaps weakens the prospects of this one. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I figured that that was what it meant, I just wanted to be sure because of the archaic phrasing. I've read Paradise Lost, I'm neither an illiterate nor a philistine. I have decided to Weak Oppose this motto. Besides the arcane phrasing, the links don't seem to be appropriate to the message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Looking back at this comment and others, I've noticed that I tend to both get defensive and start using "big words" when I reply to or ask for clarification about Pjoef's mottos. I think I'm you're giving me some kind of inferiority complex here, Pjoef...  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Per Nutiketaiel, asides from being: "hard to understand" for many, the linking is not in my opinion paticulary inspired, but I'm not fully opposed to it, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Rejected per consensus. Queenie 11:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

→ The angels come, and go, the Messengers of God!

Richard Henry Stoddard (July 2, 1825 - May 12, 1903), Hymn to the Beautiful –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but I don't like the link for "go." How about WP:VANISH instead? Less adversarial. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:VANISH is better than WP:BU! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
People come and go in this world, and our life is just a flutter of a wing (^__^). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Per Julian mainly. I'm not quite fond of any of the links, honestly. Icy // ♫ 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - doesn't really say much, besides the fact that people come and go, which is...obvious. *rim shot* —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the key part here is "the Messengers of God". But, I agree with you, it doesn't say very much... excluding the fact that it's a "Hymn to the Beautiful" Aren't we beautiful (^__^)? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: As Juliancolton said, the link for "go" is not very good, but I like the rest of the qoute. SpitfireTally-ho! 04:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Queenie 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like a game. It depends on how you play it.

Has this been done before? Simply south (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I'm really not comfortable with calling Wikipedia a game. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Julian. —La Pianista Speak · Hear 03:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support! A massively multiplayer online role-playing game ~ lol ~ I did not know it before!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Didn't some spammer's User-space MMORPG just get MFD'd recently? We really shouldn't be encouraging this kind of outlook. Alot of people would take it seriously. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Wrong outlook to be encouraging as far as wikipedia goes, boldness, well ok, but there are pleanty of better ways to encourage being bold without suggesting wikipedia is a game, my opinion SpitfireTally-ho! 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_20&oldid=1190129619"