Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30

→ Thinking of you, wherever you are.
We pray for our sorrows to end,
and hope that our hearts will blend.
Now I will step forward to realize this wish.
And who knows:
starting a new journey may not so hard
or maybe it has already begun.
There are many worlds,
but they share the same sky-
one sky, one destiny.

In honor of the missing or deceased editors that helped mold Wikipedia and its sister projects into what it is now. Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support: Weak because Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians is a bit controversial as some Wikipedians have RTV'd and might not appreciate being tracked by a list. Intelligentsium 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like the motto but I agree with Intelligentsium, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians is a bit controversial. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I love the message here, the quote is fantastic, and the link choices are right on. In response to Intelligentsium and WVRMad, what exactly is controversial about Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians? If someone invokes their RTV, why should they care that their username appears on a list? If they ever come back to Wikipedia and discover that they do care, they can always remove it. I don't think we should really worry about trampling the feelings of people who have disappeared anyway, especially since the list doesn't say anything negative about anybody. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved (per WP:SNOW) Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't fear criticisms, I laugh in the face of them.

It felt good typing this one. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support Not 100% sure on the second link •xytram•tkcsgy 11:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose in my opinion we should listen to everyone's view, especially if it is criticism, and then we should try and improve based on that criticism. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I really like the message that this sends, that we should continue to persevere in making Wikipedia great (and remember why it is so great) in the face of criticisms, especially since many of those criticisms are irrational. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spitfire. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Have you guys read the criticisms on the Criticisms of Wikipedia page? Alot of them are pretty irrational, or coming from people who have obviously no idea what they're talking about and are just bashing us to bash us. I'm fine with listening to reasoned, logical criticism from an intelligent source, but alot of that stuff is ridiculous criticism from morons. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I like it very much... great message, indeed. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per Spitfire. It's ok but there are much better mottos than this. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Etiquette—a fancy word for simple kindness

Meh, a bit rubbishy I know =p SpitfireTally-ho! 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Nice idea. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I rather like this one. It's simple and direct. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Note: hyphen changed to emdash. Intelligentsium 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - What's wrong with a hyphen? What's so great about an emdash?  :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I've been spendin' way too long checkin' my tongue in the mirror
and bendin' over backwards just to try to see it clearer
But my breath fogged up the glass
and so I drew a new face and I laughed

The links can be changed if you think of something better. :) iMatthew talk at 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - Those links are fantastic, hilarious and completely appropriate. Kudos. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support this is absolutely fantastic! The links are brilliant SpitfireTally-ho! 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Were you joking when you said 'the links can be changed if you think of something better' IMatthew? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't think they were that good. :P iMatthew talk at 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's a bit confusing. Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What's confusing you? The message is that the person was spending all of their time arguing over something silly like the color of a template. They're doing everything they can do to get their way. Then they realize that they've started an edit war and decide to forget about it, and move on to writing a new article. iMatthew talk at 19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - It's so awesome, it sounds like something I would've done. ;) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 4, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ How come we don't say I love you enough? It's not too late.

I'll give it a shot. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 3, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends

This is probably borderline FUI due to the fact the song line\lyric before this if often used as a motto. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like it, especially the last link. I searched the archives and I don't think it's been used before. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason i think it borderlines FUI is because of the lyric "I get by with a little help from my friends". Simply south (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I don't know about everyone else, but I reckon that we can use it because the actual line hasn't been used before. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - How about the arrow links to With a Little Help from My Friends instead of The Beatles? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends

Edit 1 ~ Here is an alternative (which i think works better). Simply south (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Slightly more support than original - I like the last link, very suitable. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, I prefer this version over the original. The WP:COLLAB link is an improvement, I think. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I prefer this version too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 2, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.

After all, we can't all write FAs, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's a good sentiment. I'm not all that keen on linking WP:FA to "cannot do," but I do see the message. I wish there were a better way to link that, but I can't think of one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - If we cannot find a better link for cannot do, then I'll go with edit 1. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.

Edit 1 ~ How about this? Don't think it will work, but I'll give it a shot. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I really like this one. It seems to send the message that, just because you're not an administrator, you should not let that interfere with your work on the encyclopedia. You don't need the admin tools to do alot of great work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Forget what I said. LOL. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 1, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Cleaned and fixed gives a shine

Nice and simple, a rough translation from Spanish, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Question - Is the motto supposed to be an english translation of the motto of the Academy, "Limpia, fija y da esplendor"? If so, the article says the translation is "[It] cleans, sets, and casts splendour", which would also work with the same links... Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like the motto but I'm not sure about the translation. Perhaps you could just remove that arrow link if the translation is wrong, it quite good anyway. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Limpia, fija y da esplendor
("It cleans, sets, and gives splendor")

Edit 1: original version in Spanish. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support ~ this is my favourite version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Given that this motto contains the translation that is in the article, I think that this would be the best version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 30, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned and fixed gives a shine

Edit 2 ~ without the link to the Real Academia Española per WRMAD. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - I prefer the edit 1, having 'splendour' linked to article works well! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ A little price. A lot of cover

I hope this doesn't sound too much like the (or an) advert. Simply south (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Cute :) •xytram• tkctgy 11:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It's alright. The links aren't that great, but it's passable for a slow news day. Hard to think of good links for a quote like that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Quite good but I like edit 1 more. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ A little price. A lot of cover

Edit one - What about this? Intelligentsium 03:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Actually, this does strike me as an improvement over the original. The linking is certainly far more creative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Both versions are good but I like this one a bit more, we don't usually mention WP:FP and even less often Wikipedia:PDI. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ This is better! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 29, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds.

Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds.

Edit one Intelligentsium 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - My favourite version I like the link the recent changes pratrol. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either. Simply south (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support- this is beter than what I thought of. Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - A good message and a good reminder. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds.

Edit 2 Slightly different message: If there are no good edits, vandalism will overtake articles. Intelligentsium 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

→ This is not just.

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The quote, as currently linked, seems to me to be saying that the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress is unjust. Was that what you intended? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I intended that Wikipedia isn't finished yet. Which means it is not just this, there is much more. I think I am getting confused of what "just" means in this context. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
In this context, "just" is an adjective meaning fair and righteous, related to "justice." Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn. Simply south (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you; ask what you can do for Wikipedia.

Sounds like it has been used before, but too lazy to check. Pipelinks aren't that great also. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support IMHO, I believe that "you can do for Wikipedia" should link to WP:IMPROVE. People would get it a lot quicker in my mind. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support assuming it hasn't been used before. I actually like the links as they currently are. WP:IMPROVE would only have my Weak Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - used before, [1]. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdraw -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Okay, it has been used before, but on the 18th of September 2006! So, I think it can be used again. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Changing my position to Strong Oppose, as we have used it before. I don't think we're yet at the point where we need to be repeating. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn/FUI. Simply south (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't fear criticisms, I laugh in the face of them.

It felt good typing this one. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support Not 100% sure on the second link •xytram•tkcsgy 11:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose in my opinion we should listen to everyone's view, especially if it is criticism, and then we should try and improve based on that criticism. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I really like the message that this sends, that we should continue to persevere in making Wikipedia great (and remember why it is so great) in the face of criticisms, especially since many of those criticisms are irrational. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spitfire. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Have you guys read the criticisms on the Criticisms of Wikipedia page? Alot of them are pretty irrational, or coming from people who have obviously no idea what they're talking about and are just bashing us to bash us. I'm fine with listening to reasoned, logical criticism from an intelligent source, but alot of that stuff is ridiculous criticism from morons. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I like it very much... great message, indeed. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per Spitfire. It's ok but there are much better mottos than this. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Etiquette—a fancy word for simple kindness

Meh, a bit rubbishy I know =p SpitfireTally-ho! 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Nice idea. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I rather like this one. It's simple and direct. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Note: hyphen changed to emdash. Intelligentsium 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - What's wrong with a hyphen? What's so great about an emdash?  :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I've been spendin' way too long checkin' my tongue in the mirror
and bendin' over backwards just to try to see it clearer
But my breath fogged up the glass
and so I drew a new face and I laughed

The links can be changed if you think of something better. :) iMatthew talk at 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - Those links are fantastic, hilarious and completely appropriate. Kudos. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support this is absolutely fantastic! The links are brilliant SpitfireTally-ho! 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Were you joking when you said 'the links can be changed if you think of something better' IMatthew? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't think they were that good. :P iMatthew talk at 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's a bit confusing. Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What's confusing you? The message is that the person was spending all of their time arguing over something silly like the color of a template. They're doing everything they can do to get their way. Then they realize that they've started an edit war and decide to forget about it, and move on to writing a new article. iMatthew talk at 19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - It's so awesome, it sounds like something I would've done. ;) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 4, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ How come we don't say I love you enough? It's not too late.

I'll give it a shot. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 3, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends

This is probably borderline FUI due to the fact the song line\lyric before this if often used as a motto. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like it, especially the last link. I searched the archives and I don't think it's been used before. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason i think it borderlines FUI is because of the lyric "I get by with a little help from my friends". Simply south (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I don't know about everyone else, but I reckon that we can use it because the actual line hasn't been used before. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - How about the arrow links to With a Little Help from My Friends instead of The Beatles? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends

Edit 1 ~ Here is an alternative (which i think works better). Simply south (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Slightly more support than original - I like the last link, very suitable. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, I prefer this version over the original. The WP:COLLAB link is an improvement, I think. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I prefer this version too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 2, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.

After all, we can't all write FAs, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's a good sentiment. I'm not all that keen on linking WP:FA to "cannot do," but I do see the message. I wish there were a better way to link that, but I can't think of one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - If we cannot find a better link for cannot do, then I'll go with edit 1. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.

Edit 1 ~ How about this? Don't think it will work, but I'll give it a shot. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I really like this one. It seems to send the message that, just because you're not an administrator, you should not let that interfere with your work on the encyclopedia. You don't need the admin tools to do alot of great work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Forget what I said. LOL. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 1, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Cleaned and fixed gives a shine

Nice and simple, a rough translation from Spanish, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Question - Is the motto supposed to be an english translation of the motto of the Academy, "Limpia, fija y da esplendor"? If so, the article says the translation is "[It] cleans, sets, and casts splendour", which would also work with the same links... Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like the motto but I'm not sure about the translation. Perhaps you could just remove that arrow link if the translation is wrong, it quite good anyway. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Limpia, fija y da esplendor
("It cleans, sets, and gives splendor")

Edit 1: original version in Spanish. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support ~ this is my favourite version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Given that this motto contains the translation that is in the article, I think that this would be the best version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 30, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned and fixed gives a shine

Edit 2 ~ without the link to the Real Academia Española per WRMAD. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - I prefer the edit 1, having 'splendour' linked to article works well! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ A little price. A lot of cover

I hope this doesn't sound too much like the (or an) advert. Simply south (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Cute :) •xytram• tkctgy 11:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It's alright. The links aren't that great, but it's passable for a slow news day. Hard to think of good links for a quote like that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Quite good but I like edit 1 more. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 1) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ A little price. A lot of cover

Edit one - What about this? Intelligentsium 03:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Actually, this does strike me as an improvement over the original. The linking is certainly far more creative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Both versions are good but I like this one a bit more, we don't usually mention WP:FP and even less often Wikipedia:PDI. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ This is better! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 29, 2009 (per consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds.

Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds.

Edit one Intelligentsium 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - My favourite version I like the link the recent changes pratrol. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either. Simply south (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support- this is beter than what I thought of. Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - A good message and a good reminder. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Without hard work, nothing grows but weeds.

Edit 2 Slightly different message: If there are no good edits, vandalism will overtake articles. Intelligentsium 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

→ This is not just.

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The quote, as currently linked, seems to me to be saying that the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress is unjust. Was that what you intended? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I intended that Wikipedia isn't finished yet. Which means it is not just this, there is much more. I think I am getting confused of what "just" means in this context. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
In this context, "just" is an adjective meaning fair and righteous, related to "justice." Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn. Simply south (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you; ask what you can do for Wikipedia.

Sounds like it has been used before, but too lazy to check. Pipelinks aren't that great also. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support IMHO, I believe that "you can do for Wikipedia" should link to WP:IMPROVE. People would get it a lot quicker in my mind. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support assuming it hasn't been used before. I actually like the links as they currently are. WP:IMPROVE would only have my Weak Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - used before, [2]. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdraw -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Okay, it has been used before, but on the 18th of September 2006! So, I think it can be used again. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Changing my position to Strong Oppose, as we have used it before. I don't think we're yet at the point where we need to be repeating. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn/FUI. Simply south (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Hard work conquers everything.

A lot of the Dawn of War menu quotes are contrary to the ideas of Wikipedia, but this one is actually fitting. UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 03:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 2. Simply south (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Hard work conquers everything.

Edit 1 - per Intelligentsium. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 11:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 2. Simply south (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Hard work conquers everything.

Edit 2 - per Intelligentsium. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 11:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I would support this edit. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ best version for me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This quote is simple and to the point, and it sends a fantastic message. Excellent link choices in this version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Intelligentsium 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 2 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

A version of Edmund Burke's famous quote. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Current Score (assuming Strong is 2x and "Quite Strong" is 3x) is +5, as of 5:58 PM GMT-8, 11/14/09.

  • Conditional Support - It's a good message, but have we used it already? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I searched the 2006-2008 archives for "evil" (the only word common among all versions of the phrase), and found no matches. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Works for me then. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Great motto with great links. Noneofyour (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite strong support - Well done, great motto! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support ~ Very well done!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 25, 2009 (per consensus; 4++ in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

→ In beauty, faults conspicuous grow;
The smallest speck is seen on snow

John Gay (1685–1732), Fables: "Peacock, Turkey, and Goose" (1738) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 24, 2009 (per consensus; 4 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Love like you've never been hurt, Dance like nobody's watching, and Live everyday for itself.

It has been awhile since I've submitted one, so I'll give this a try. BW21.--BlackWatch21 22:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have some difficulties and I'm not sure who to attribute this quote. Satchel Paige wrote (or said): “Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching.”
    There are many identical or similar quotes on "TheirSpace" and on the WWW (around 100K results using Yahoo.)
    Also, it would be nice to have triple pairs of links: Love→hurt / Dance→watching / Live→itself.
    Anyway, I will support it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Excellent quote, excellent links, excellent message. I think the links are fine as they are, but I suppose I would not be opposed to links for "watching" and "itself" if somebody can come up with good ones. I can't think of any. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support •xytram• tkctgy 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support this is a brilliant motto and quote, with a great message, we need far more like this, nice work, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Strong support for adding itself like in edit 1. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 23, 2009 (per consensus; 5 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live everyday for itself

Edit 1 Added wp:BOLD and wp:FORGIVE links as per Pjoef's comment •xytram• tkctgy 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - Hmmm... the "dance like nobody's watching" linking seems to imply that the idea that the Recent Change Patrollers are watching you would normally be a discouragement to boldness, which I don't think should be the case. Also, the links in "and live everyday for itself" don't seem to fit together well. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Agree with Nutiketaiel about 'watching' link, if it is removed: Support. I like the link for 'itself'. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of the original) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes

I'm unsure of my first link but can't find anything more appropriate, edit this version if you like •xytram•tkcsgy 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I've restored the original version and created the "Edit 1" version below as per Nutiketaiel request. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - I really like the quote, but the links aren't that good. The first link kind of ruins it for me, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I need to think more. The second link is OK. I think the third link would be better as a link to WP:MISTAKES in this context. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit Changed links as above. Any better? •xytram•tkcsgy 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Request - If you're going to change the links, could you do it as a separate "Edit 1" please? Now I can't remember what the original looked like. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Not that bad but edit 1 is much better. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes

Edit 1: "Changed links as above. Any better?" by Xytram. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support ~ I'm not sure about the first link... but I think it will work. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is definitely an improvement. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good motto, much better than original. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Crescit eundo

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Darn it. Withdraw. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - withdrawn\FUI. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

:) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Grin heh, nothing more to say, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing more to say, because the motto doesn't say much of anything. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Yeah, this doesn't say much. By the way, I saw this as a banner a few days ago, and it looked like the work of a hacker. Was this legit in the first place? Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like that thought but I see 3 problems: 1 it looks like the motto is forcing poeple to participate in the fundraiser of the same name, 2 this motto has no or little relevence to Wikipedia and 3, the program that has this title is very controversial. Secret Saturdays (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Stong oppose per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - looks like vandalism. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - joke motto. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Do or do not; there is no try

Origin of the motto and your comments. 69.210.132.185 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose So, if someone attempts to improve an article and actually harms it, they are acting in bad faith? --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Regretfull oppose the quote is, in my opinion, cliche. But I'm afraid I disagree with the links too, its wrong to say: "if you can't make the article a FA, then don't bother editing it at all (or we'll delete it)". I know that that was not how the motto was meant, but it could be construed as that, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - So, if it's not featured content, it should be deleted? No. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If we deleted everything that wasn't featured, we would be deleting 6816132 articles and leaving only 2685! Besides, there are plenty of good articles that aren't featured. Intelligentsium 03:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - bad links. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle

Nice sentiment. I felt like putting something to do with vandalism as hard battle. But that make people feel that all we do here is that! •xytram• tkctgy 12:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Good linking, good message. I agree that a link to WP:Vandalism would not be the best thing for the end of the motto. I don't think it needs a link, but if you wanted to put one in, maybe one of the pages about improving the encyclopedia or improving articles? It doesn't seem like a link is needed, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support but I have an idea. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved original per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle

Edit 1 How about this? --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - The extra link really doesn't add anything. The first version was better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per Nutiketaiel, original version is better. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings.

If there is too much vandalism on articles, the articles eventually get deleted. Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: ORIGINAL VERSION –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose that is not or should not happen on Wikipedia unless nonsense. Simply south (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current form per Simply South. Considering the original meaning of the quote, I was thinking that we could remove the second link and change the first to Wikipedia:Censorship or Internet censorship. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - Wait, is this the original form of the quote? The objections above don't seem to make sense if it is. If you change the quote after you put it up beyond minor grammar corrections, you should relist the change as "edit 1" so we can all see what everyone is talking about. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Answer: links have been changed! Plz, see edit 1 below. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Support edit 1. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings.

Edit 1 per Secret Saturdays (Revision as of 23:49, 1 November 2009). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Simply south (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (showing what i was supporting 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Question: If they "burn books" then...??? It seems (to me) to be incomplete. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It seems perfectly clear to me. You don't need a link in the second section when the meaning is this clear. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The meaning of the sentence is clear to me too, but a great link for "burn human beings" will complete it (IMHO). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support •xytram• tkctgy 11:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - per Pjoef. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Beauty is Nature's coin, must not be hoarded.
But must be current, and the good thereof
Consists in mutual and partaken bliss.
Unsavory in th' enjoyment of itself:
If you let slip time, like a neglected rose,
It withers on the stalk with languished head.

John Milton (1608–1674), Poems of Mr John Milton, Both English and Latin, "Comus" (A Mask Presented at Ludlow Castle, 1634) (1645). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - The links are pretty good here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Long winded but very well linked •xytram•tkcsgy 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's long-winded and might be hard to understand. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - Why is "long-windedness" a bad thing? Are you just planning to oppose every motto that stretches to more than 15 words or something? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Very long and a bit hard to understand but very good links. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ There's nothing ill can dwell in such a temple:
If the ill spirit have so fair a house,
Good things will strive to dwell with't.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), The Tempest, Act I, Scene ii (1623) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This took me quite a long time to work out, the second line I read as 'if the vandalism-only-account have so fair a signup'. I think it means that Wikipedia is such a fair place that a people wouldn't be inclined to vandalise it, but what about the amount of vandals it gets! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I don't get it. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support, assuming that my interpretation is accurate - I think that what it's trying to say is that Wikipedia is so cool, nothing bad can come here, and if vandals would just realize how cool we are, they wouldn't come here to vandalize. Is that the gist of what this motto is trying to get across, Pjoef? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply: Yes, Nutiketaiel, your interpretation is completely correct!!! And, the fact that it could be hard to understand, in some cases, is not a bad idea, because it makes people thinking. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nutiketaiel, and it might be hard to understand. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - You seem to have opposed twice.... Intelligentsium 01:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per no\weak consensus (discounting I dream of horses's second vote). Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ There's nothing ill can dwell in such a temple:
If the ill spirit have so fair a house,
Good things will strive to dwell with't

Edit 1 Just an idea for some different link or two maybe? •xytram•tkcsgy 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This set of links doesn't really make sense to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it might be hard to understand. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - I don't get it, anyway aren't mottos meant to be something catchy, not something to spend 10 minutes working out! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 09:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ If you believe everything you read, better not read

Simply stating that Wikipedia is not perfect but can easily be improved •xytram•tkcsgy 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: The second link seems to be discouraging people from editing... Intelligentsium 22:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The second link is a discouragement to editing. I like the proverb, but it is difficult to think of a set of links that would not be some kind of discouragement to Wikipedians. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Complete opposite of be bold. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - per above. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ To all who come to this happy place - welcome.

Going to give it a shot. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Food is essential to life. Therefore, make it good.

I saw this quote at one of the Chick-fil-a restraunts. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support •xytram• tkctgy 11:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The quote is funny and original, and the linking good. I'm not 100% sold on WP:BOLD for the last link, but it does fit, so go with it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm not 100% sold on this. Let me improve it. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved (per consenus) Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Food is essential to life. Therefore, make it good.

Edit 1 How about this? --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I see what you're going for with it, but I'm still not all that happy with the last link. I think the original version was a bit better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favor of edit 1) Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

→ We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.

Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellent quote and very good link selection. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support Would be nice if new paths could have a link, such as WP:CREATE •xytram•tkcsgy 12:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - I personally don't really think that a link for "new paths" is really necessary, but if you guys insist I wouldn't be opposed to WP:CREATE. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved (per consenus) Secret Saturdays (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


A reputation isn't something you buy or inherit, it's something you earn

If anyone as an idea for links, please add it to the motto. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Added some links -what do people think? •xytram•tkcsgy 11:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - See Edit 2 notes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 2) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A reputation isn't something you buy or inherit, it's something you earn

Edit 1 A possible better third link. Promoting boldness as a positive •xytram•tkcsgy 11:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support provided the link to WP:COPY is removed, it doesn't make sense within the context of the motto. Otherwise, brilliant, it helps promote "be bold", but is also very subtly tempered with "but not too bold". SpitfireTally-ho! 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - See Edit 2 notes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 2) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A reputation isn't something you buy or inherit, it's something you earn

Edit 2 - I agree with Spitfire that the WP:COPY link didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. However, on further consideration, I realized why it was there- the message is that you should not try to enhance yourself or your reputation on Wikipedia by using (i.e., buying or inheriting) the works of others (thus, violating copyright). With that in mind, I think that this version makes a little more sense in context. Both the original and Edit 1 are passable and carry my Weak Support, but this version carries my Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Yep that's what I was getting at! :) •xytram•tkcsgy 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ My favorite version! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 15, 2009 (per consensus; ; 3 in support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While one person hesitates because he feels inferior, the other is busy making mistakes and becoming superior.

I really like this quote basically personifying an article -Orphaned articles won't get updated as much, and it's OK to be bold & imperfect to end up with FAC •xytram•tkcsgy 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - I like the idea of the quote, and I like the last part, but linking WP:ORPHAN to "inferior" really falls flat to me, and I'm not sure about linking WP:ARTICLE to "person," either. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Meh. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 2) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While one person hesitates because he feels inferior, the other is busy making mistakes and becoming superior

Edit 1 How about this? •xytram•tkcsgy 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose You are aware that WP:USER links to the page about user pages, right? --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Is there a page on non-registered users who edit? I assumed that a Wikipedian would be a register user rather than anonymous •xytram•tkcsgy 10:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 2) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While one person hesitates because he feels inferior, the other is busy making mistakes and becoming superior.

Edit 2 This one might be a little better. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - These links are much better, and the message is fantastic. It really catches the spirit of WP:BOLD in a nutshell. Maybe we should add this quote to WP:BOLD. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yep I agree with Nutiketaiel •xytram•tkcsgy 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ (IMHO) This version is better! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Encourages bold editing. ~AH1(TCU) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 14, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ It is our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously

•xytram•tkcsgy 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I really like the sentiment here and I think it has alot of potential; the first link is excellent. The second link does not seem ideal, but at the same time I can't think of any link that would be better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's all right, but I have an idea that may be better. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I prefer this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 13, 2009 (per consensus; 2-3 in support, and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→It's our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously.

Edit 1 How about this one? --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Preferred over my own links •xytram•tkcsgy 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - The original linking was better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of the original) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadows of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me.

If anyone as an idea for better links, please add it to the motto. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - Seems to equate Admins with the Judeo-Christian deity, or at least equates their intervention with the act of a deity. Bad, bad message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Nutiketaiel. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 4) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadows of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me

Edit 1 •xytram•tkcsgy 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I like this version much better. It puts the onus of protecting pages where it belongs- with all users, and stresses cooperation with the recent change patrollers. Unfortunately, the link to WP:EVIL is completely misplaced- it is a link to a failed policy page that makes no sense at all. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think linking to failed policy is a good idea.--I dream of horses (T) @ 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 4) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadows of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me

Edit 2 - I replaced the WP:EVIL link with WP:VANDALISM, which I think makes much more sense in context. I also restored the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress link from the original version, which I felt was a good representation and a page we don't link to often. This version has my Strong Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support •xytram•tkcsgy 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose WP:USER links to the page about user pages. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 4) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadows of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me

Edit 3 This much better? --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support The link on "I" seems redundant. Intelligentsium 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Weak support •xytram•tkcsgy 10:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This version is fine, though I have a preference for my own edit 4 below. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (in favour of Edit 4) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadows of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me

Edit 4- I changed the "I" link from WP:USER to WP:WIKIPEDIAN. I also altered the "you" link, slightly, pulling a link from Edit 3. This version has my Strong Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • STRONG SUPPORT!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support •xytram• tkctgy 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good links and message. ~AH1(TCU) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 12, 2009 (per consensus; 2 in support, 2 in strong support and 0 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

→ A daughter of the gods, divinely tall.
And most divinely fair.

Alfred Tennyson (1809–1892), Poems, "A Dream of Fair Women" (1832) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's not bad, but I don't see the reasoning behind linking WP:IMPERFECT to "most divinely fair." Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC*
  • Oppose I don't get it. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: What's that last link about? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I don't get the last link, otherwise it's a good moto. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support The final link is a play on words meaning it's OK to for articles never to be perfect. Alfred used fair in it's noun form, whereas this uses it in its adjective form. However, not everyone would understand it! •xytram•tkcsgy 11:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply: Yep ~ lol ~ thanks for the explanation, Xytram!!! I never explains my nominations because who will read our approved mottos will be not able to ask questions in regards to the meaning of a motto and the links we used. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Which, of course, means that 3 out of 4 times you'll just have to explain later when one of us asks.  :-P It might save you time to explain first sometimes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Another day, another prominent accomplishment.

This is supposed to present an overview that Wikipedia is moving forward, not back. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It's really not much of a motto. Not very creative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Not that good, but not not terrible. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened (not enough discussion) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Another day, another prominent accomplishment.

This any better? --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Another day, another prominent accomplishment

  • Edits 2a & 2b Better? Promoting the Tasks of the day to get more FA •xytram•tkcsgy 11:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:TODAY is inactive. Promoting it in the motto might confuse new users. Intelligentsium 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Intelligentsium on using the inactive page. Also, it's still not a very good motto in the first place. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

→ Another day, another dollar

Edit 3 or 2a.II. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I guess the links make a little more sense this way, but the motto itself is still very bland, and I'm not a huge fan of self-referential mottos. It's not terrible, though. My mind might be swayed by informed, reasoned debate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to tell the truth than tell a lie.

...Secret Saturdays (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - better than without links. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The first link doesn't work for me- I'm not sure what the "Use Common Sense" portion on an essay explaining WP:IAR has to do with the motto or the word "easier." Additionally, I'm not sure about the motto as a whole. After all, is it not easier to make shit up than it is to find reliable sources and write the article as it should be? Not that I'm advocating making shit up (or making mottos about making shit up), but the motto itself just seems off to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose I don't understand how the links applies to the quote. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Same as Nutiketaie. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is easier than simply telling a tale

  • Edit 1 I'm not impressed by my final link •xytram•tkcsgy 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - My concerns are the same as with the original. I do not think we should be sending a message about how easy it is to put fraudulent information on Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is easier than simply telling a tale

  • Edit 2. How's this one? ~AH1(TCU) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support Kinda works for me •xytram• tkctgy 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

→ I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis

Nomination refrencing Dos Equis reminded me of this one. 67.180.161.183 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't get this one at all. What does beer preference have to do with anti-vandalism tools? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this one. Nutiketaiel, you’re right...beer preference has nothing to do with anti-vandalism tools. But it’s just an analogy, and I think it works. Of course, it would make more sense if you’re familiar with the saying.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It's got absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia - unless you add the links. I think that this is what moto of the day is about, taking an odd moto, making it relevant to Wikipedia, then having a good laugh at the end! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I agree that that is what MotD is about, but I don't understand the anaolgy. What is it trying to say? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to Nutiketaiel: The way I see it, the motto is basically saying that if you want to clean up vandalism, you should use . Again, like I said before, the saying itself would make a lot more sense if you saw the Dos Equis commercial that said it.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Well, I remain opposed to it. I guess I just don't watch enough beer comercials. Besides, you don't need those tools to fight vandalism. I fight vandals the old fashioned way, with the recent changes page and the revert button. Just like the knights of old!! Just as my father, and my grandfather, and my great-grandfather did before me, in the old country. (Wait, does rollback count as a tool?) Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Response: Fair enough. And yes, I’m almost positive that rollback counts as a tool.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Damn. Guess I'm not as old fashioned as I thought. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ~ Not so bad, but not that good either. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess some people don't drink Dos Equis... 67.180.161.183 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I don't drink beer, I don't watch beer adverts and the moto isn't the best in the best in the world - but I think it's passable and quite funny. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't think we need to be encouraging beer drinking while editing wikipedia, and there are plenty of quality vandal fighters who vandal fight the "old fashioned" way. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not the best analogy ever, and this does sound like promotion. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

→ I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis

Here is an interesting take although i hope not the wrong way. Edit 1. Simply south (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - The links are non-sensical in this context. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not nonsensical. It is saying that a vandal troll (found better link) doesn't always contribute to Wikipedia, but when they do, it would seem that they antagonise people. Simply south (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - OK, then, it's not non-sensical. It's advocating the assumption of bad faith towards individuals you think are trolls, which is the opposite of what we should be doing. I am, if anything, more opposed now than I was originally. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't still don't get it. If a vandal was vandalizing Wikipedia, they wouldn't be contributing to it. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Assume good faith is part of contributing to wikipedia. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: When I saw this, my reaction was "WTF?"... Entirely wrong idea conveyed. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

→ I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis

Way much better version than e1. Edit 2. Simply south (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - What do edit summaries have to do with the quote? Also, the first part seems to be saying that it is OK to not always fill in edit summaries, which is really not a message we want to endorse. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It was meant to be an encoragement to get peoiple to do edit summaries. How could this be improved further? Simply south (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined all per consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A small act of kindness can go a long way.

I forgot who created this quote. Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support •xytram•tkcsgy 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Drawing attention to the kindness campaign is always a good thing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support!!! ~ About who created this quote, check this out. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Encouraging for new and friendly editors. ~AH1(TCU) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

→ To freely bloom — that is my definition of success

•xytram•tkcsgy 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - It's simple and too the point, with a clear message encouraging boldness. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Sweet and simple. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Perhaps change the hyphen to an emdash (—)? We don't really need to create an edit1 for that. Intelligentsium 01:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - We don't need an edit 1 to change a hyphen to an emdash (though I really don't see the difference), nor for any other minor grammatical changes or spelling corrections. We would need an edit one for any change to the links, or any re-wording of the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: It is simply great! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 10, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Which came first, the seed or the plant?

Do editors make Wikipedia, or would there be no editors without Wikipedia? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't think MOTD is a place for philosophy. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think there's a problem with a little pop-philosophy in a motto, and this one is appropriately linked. I'm cool with it. Who knows, this could be the first of a whole new branch of philosophy- WikiMetaPhysics (or would it be MetaWikiPhysics?). Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Good one. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support •xytram•tkcsgy 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 9, 2009 (per consensus; 4 in support and 1 opposed) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Having a high position doesn't make you great, what you do is what makes you great.

Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support I like this one. Links make sense too :) •xytram•tkcsgy 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This motto speaks for itself. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support Sends the message that having user rights isn't a big deal. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support 'nuff said. Hires an editor (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

→ "Time's glory is to command contending kings
To unmask falsehood, and bring truth to light."

William Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrece. This is my first nomination - thought it would be interesting. Intelligentsium 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - I like the quote, and I like the last two links, but linking "contending kings" in this context to WP:EW ruins it for me. We should not be referring to edit wars in such a positive fashion. I suggest linking "contending kings" to WP:USERS. This way, it becomes clear that it is constructive editors who unmask falsehood and bring truth to light, not those disruptive edit warriors. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bad link for contending kings, edit 1 is much better. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Eh, what? How do the links even connect with each other? --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1 Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

→ "Time's glory is to command contending kings
To unmask falsehood, and bring truth to light."

Edit 1 - Per my above suggestion, this edit has my strong support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why edit war probably wasn't such a good choice, but it seemed logical with the part about "contending kings". If you think this one is better, I don't see any harm in changing it to this then. Intelligentsium 16:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened (both original and edit 1; not enough discussion) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: This one (edit 1) but definitely not the original. Why was this reopened BTW? It has 4 supports and no opposes. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support •xytram•tkcsgy 11:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny.

It's worth a shot. Who said mottos have to be complete sentences anyway? Think of it as a theatrical poster. 67.180.161.183 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The motto doesn't really say anything. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. There’s no context here whatsoever; I would suggest adding more if you want to make this a genuine nomination.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Did it ever come to you that that was the joke? 67.180.161.183 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'll second the above. ;)--LAAFansign review 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support 3rd! Is it possible to change the full stop/period with an exclamation mark? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - why not?! Simply south (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Because it doesn't say anything. It doesn't have a message about Wikipedia or carry any meaning at all. It's just the word "funny" with a link to the Department of Fun. It's not a motto. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened (no consensus) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose the motto carries no real message about editing wikipedia, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support We all need to have fun and laugh sometimes. THAT'S, I think, is the message.--I dream of horses (T) @ 01:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support That is the message, it's a good one too! Smaug123 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Nice idea. We don't need to have mind boggling mottos all the time. It's not like people sit and stare at it to guess what it means anyway. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved per weak consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

→ How near to good is what is fair,
Which we no sooner see,
But with the lines and outward air
Our senses taken be.
We wish to see it still, and prove
What ways we may deserve;
We court, we praise, we more than love,
We are not grieved to serve.

Ben Jonson (1572–1637), Love Freed from Ignorance and Folly (1616) ~ I'm not sure about this one. Surely we could use a better set of links, or, maybe, only the second part from: We wish to see it still.... –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Hmmm... I don't think it would be a good idea to use just the second half. We'd lose all the context if we did that. I agree that we could find better links, but I can't see a set right off. I'll give it some thought. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - It's a bit long, and there is little context here. It might not fit properly or well into many of the methods used to display the MoTD. Intelligentsiumreview 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - We have had mottos of similiar length before without experiencing any display issues. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Size doesn't automatically make it a reject. Secret Saturdays (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support/Suggestions It's ok but would do better with more links. I have thought of some links so I'll see what people think.

How near to good is what is fair,
Which we no sooner see,
But with the lines and outward air
Our senses taken be.
We wish to see it still, and prove
What ways we may deserve;
We court, we praise, we more than love,
We are not grieved to serve. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Reply- Those suggested links would have my Support. I think the additions are an improvement that make the meaning of the motto to Wikipedia more clear. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This motto is *way* too long. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - And why is length a problem? We've had mottos of this length on numerous occasions before. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

→ How near to good is what is fair,
Which we no sooner see,
But with the lines and outward air
Our senses taken be.
We wish to see it still, and prove
What ways we may deserve;
We court, we praise, we more than love,
We are not grieved to serve.

Per WVRMad. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support! ~ better ver. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Good one. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Nice •xytram•tkcsgy 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't for you, there would be nothing

Heard this phrase somewhere before...need a link to Wikipedia, but linking Wikipedia to nothing would seem awkward. Also, needs re-phrasing. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's a fairly blah phrasing, but it does make a good point. I don't think it needs a link to Wikipedia, as it seems self-explanatory on its own. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Motto is fine but what about the people who contribute via an IP address? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per WVRMAD. IP editors are Wikipedians, too! --I dream of horses (T) @ 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved per above and below consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't for you, there would be nothing.

Edit 2 per WVRMad. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • SupportWeak Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It's fine. I prefer the original, as that one seems to encourage users to register, which is desireable, but this one is passable. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened All versions per no consensus.--LAAFansign review 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support original version ~ I change my position per Nutiketaiel (to encourage ppl to register is very desireable.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Unless someone has read this conversation, if they just see the original I don't think they'll realise it is meant to encourage people to register. Looking at the first one straight away I wouldn't see that point. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well, without editors, at this point, Wikipedia would still exist someplace, on some kind of mirror site. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh? - How exactly could Wikipedia exist without editors? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support if there is an emergency. Smaug123 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Nice idea, but a bit bland. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support original version We are all users before we are editors :) •xytram•tkcsgy 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of original per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

→ We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.

I would like to appear on November 4 (Election day in the US). Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't think it's a good idea to relate the Presidency of the United States to adminship, because that might give people the (incorrect) idea that adminship is a position of authority, power, and respect, which it is not. Intelligentsiumreview 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I completely agree with Intelligentsium on this one. We don't want to be giving the false impression that Adminship is worthy of esteem or special regard, or that it is something people should aspire to. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (per concensus) Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

→ We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.

Edit one - This has my support, because it sends a "don't bite based on edit count" message, whilst not portraying admins as authority figures. Intelligentsiumreview 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as the original creator I believe that the other was better in message because I heard of a lot of users that were rejected for adminship because of their age and as such, the age thing m,ust be discussed and be noticed by the community (and we rarely have a problem with edit counting bites). Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This version sends a much better message than the original which applies to all Wikipedians. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Nutiketaiel. ---Artichoke-Boy (talk)(sign) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 4, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Tenka Fubu
("Conquer all under heaven")

"Conquer all under heaven," which supports the spirit of boldness. -moritheilTalk 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Wow, we're really racking up the non-english mottos lately. Still, the link fits, though the phrase is pretty obscure, and your translation doesn't match up exactly with the one in the article under the arrow link (though that's not necessarily unusual in these cases, and it's close enough). However, it would be helpful to have the translation in the motto itself so the readers actually know what it is saying. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Ok moto, link fits. It needs the translation though, not everyone one wants to bother looking up an article just to see what the phrase means. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm kind of bored of bold quotes, myself, but this quote is okay. Following the quotes' instruction, I went ahead and boldly put the translation under the quote. ;-) --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Revenge is a dish best not served at all.

This is my take on the famous "revenge is a dish best served cold" line. ---Artichoke-Boy (talk)(sign) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong support I like it. The links fit the quote, and the quote fits wikipedia. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ good one. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - above reasons! Smaug123 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

→ No soup for you!

This is arguably one of the most famous Seinfeld lines of all time. ---Artichoke-Boy (talk)(sign) 14:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - The links are certainly appropriate. Provided it hasn't been used before, I'm behind it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I really like it and would Support it, but it has been suggested and rejected before, (See this). Could we still use it even though it has been used before because it was declined originally or not? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you can use the motto again considering it was not approved, especially since it was just rejected in favor of another edit.--LAAFan 04:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply- Yeah, it looks like the one that actually went through was the pretzel version, for some odd reason. Since the soup version has never actually been used as a motto, I'm cool with it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'd hate to invoke Godwins' law on MOTD. And yes, that's my only objection. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Witty! Smaug123 (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

→ I predict a riot, I predict a riot

Does this work? Simply south (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I think this motto sends a bad message. On first reading, it struck me that it was predicting an edit war, then not doing anything to try to prevent it because it saw its prediction as an inevitability. I know I'm reading alot into it, but I just can't shake that interpretation. If a motto is going to be about edit wars, it should be about preventing them or stopping them. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Nutiketaiel, an important part of a moto is the first impression it gives the reader. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Whoops. Withdrawn. Unless someone can find some better use for this. Simply south (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

→ I predict a riot, I predict a riot

e1 Simply south (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened - No consensus\not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It's still not much of a motto. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - It's not much better than the original. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose No unwittingly predicting riots on wikipedia, please. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined Both original and edit 1 per WP:SNOW--LAAFan 03:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

→ It don't matter if you're black or white

Simply south (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Nice moto, carries a good point across. Although I'd hope nothing like that happened on Wikipedia anyway. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. It’s good, but aren’t the lyrics "It don’t matter is you’re black or white"? ---Artichoke-Boy (talk)(sign) 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It's not bad. I feel like there could be a better link, but I'm not sure what it would be, so I'm going to shut up about it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support Everybody deserves not to be attacked. The quote conveys this applies in spite of race. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

→ "There's nothing that allays an angry mind
So soon as a sweet beauty.

Francis Beaumont (1584–1616) and John Fletcher (1579–1625), The Elder Brother, Act III, Scene V (1637) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I'm not sure what a Featured Article has to do with allaying anger. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Nutiketaiel. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Re2Both: To read a well done and interesting article (like each FA should be or it is assumed to be) probably can help us to reach that goal (to eliminate angry feelings from our minds, minds that are busy doing something more interesting, constructive, enjoyable and educational for us all). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey... I have an idea! What if "angry mind" were linked to something like WP: ANTI or Criticism of Wikipedia? I’m going to make an edit 1 and edit 2, and see if the quote gets more support that way. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - per Nutiketaiel, the other edits are also much better. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

→ There's nothing that allays an angry mind
So soon as a sweet beauty.

Edit 1 per me. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Good, but I prefer Edit 2. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it but Edit 2 is my favourite. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

→ There's nothing that allays an angry mind
So soon as a sweet beauty.

Edit 2 per me. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I prefer this to Edit 1. This revision makes it clear what kind of anger a well written and well sourced article (like a featured article) might allay. Edit 1 does the same thing, but I have a slight preference for the link used in Edit 2. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite strong support - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support I like this the most! --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Edit 2 and no Declined Original and Edit 1 per consensus.--LAAFan 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not be discouraged if for everything you do well, someone else does better, for surely for everything you do poorly, someone else does worse

Origin of the motto and your comments. I thought of it in school. 68.249.3.8 (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - It's an interesting sentiment, and I like it, but it is worded a little awkwardly. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I like it, except from the fact that it could be seen to be encourage competitivity, whereas what we should be encouraging is everyone working together on articles, and helping out those who are struggling. Still, that's just one way of looking at it. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I like it! I have to agree that it's a bit wordy, and it sounds like it's trying to be from a famous author (Of course, I don't know, maybe you're on your way!), but the thought is there. Maybe something along the lines of "Don't be discouraged if you don't do something as well as someone else, because you could surely do worse." (with appropriate wikilinks) The thing is, "don't be discouraged if you do poorly, at least you're doing something!" There's some greater truth in this, I'll have to tease it out by playing with it for a while. "Your contributions are still valued!" Hires an editor (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it! I agree with Spitfire, I think it does seen to encourage competitivity but I still really like it, the links are very good as well. I'm not really sure about Hires an editor's suggestions, they might be very good linked correctly but I like the moto as it is. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

→ My name is Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you!

From Milk Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don’t know, there’s just something about the linking here that I think will send the wrong message. It sort of strikes me as saying that Wikipedia is some military-esque place that drafts everyone it can. Sorry, it just doesn’t settle very well. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The reference is too obscure. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose - There's nothing wrong with it but it's perhaps a bit too obscure. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined Per consensus.--LAAFan 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

→ An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.

This is a quote from C.S. Lewis. I don’t think it’s too confusing...it basically means that explaining why you did something doesn’t always make the action justified. And, in this case, it’s accusing someone of a personal attack for accusing you of a personal attack. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - It's not bad. Which of his works does this quote come from? It sounds familiar. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I actually don’t know where the quote originally came from. I just heard of it from a quote book or website I was reading. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting, and I quite like it. A good message that's relevant (NPANPA happens all too often). Only possible issue is that it took me some time to fully figure out the meaning in relation to the quote itself, but I'd say it's a keeper. JamieS93 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Great moto, it did take me a moment or to to work it out, but it's still very good. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Death is a dish best served...warm?

The origin is the famous quote "Death is a dish best served cold" which I have modifed for Wikipedia. This quote suggests that when an article gets speedy deleted, especially if it is an article by a brand new contributor, the nominator should do their best to explain the deletion in a way that values the effort of the contribution while explaining how the editor can contribute better. If CSDers went back to their nominations and replied to the {{holdon}} tags with civility and respect rather than blasting the new users with policy, we have a better opportunity to gain future valuable editors. TParis00ap (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I like the links and your explanation, but I don't think it'll fit with Wikipedia. Secret Saturdays (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I, too, hate Speedy Deleters (except for obvious vandalism, of course), I don't really think that this quote is appropriate. Also, I thought the original was "Revenge is a dish best served cold," not "Death." Or am I wrong on that one? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Secret Saturdays. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined per WP:SNOW.--LAAFan 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Minna, miteite kure! ("Everyone, Please look!")

A brawl taunt from Marth (it originated from Super Smash Bros Brawl). If you have a better idea for a link, pleaser change it. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - straight to the point. Simply south (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - The link is appropriate, I guess, but it seems like a really wierd quote. Why use a Japanese taunt from an obscure video game character as a motto? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak Support - In retrospect, we have had more obscure quotes than that, and if we have had so many Latin quotes, there's nothing inherently wrong with a Japanese quote, and the link is appropriate, so I guess it's alright. As long as we're sure the translation and the transliteration are accurate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - fine. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Work hard, eat right, and you'll never stop earning your stripes.
We are tigers, might mighty tigers!

Frosted Flakes, they're more than good! They're grrrrrrrrreat! 67.180.161.183 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Work hard, eat right, and you'll never stop earning your stripes.

Edit 1 A proposed alternative addressed the problems of the original (such as it won't be obvious that it was an advertisement and getting rid of WP:REVERT). Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Edit 1 and no Declined original per consensus.--LAAFan 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Nobody can bring you peace but yourself.

Once again from brainyquote.com Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support ~ I love this quote, it is definitely one of my favourites. The link is also perfect! peACE –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a decent quote with an appropriate link and a good message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good quote. Good link. Simple and to-the-point. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 01:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

→ 90 percent of my time is spent on 10 percent of the world.

Also from brainyquote.com Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It's not really relevant, nor does it have a deeper meaning or moral. Intelligentsiumreview 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - First impression- it seems to denigrate Wikipedia. Upon further reading I understand what you're going for, but I still don't think it sends much of a message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined Per consensus.--LAAFan 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold but be not too bold

Tell me if this has been used before, I was surprised when an archive search turned up nothing, since this is on WP:BOLD. Intelligentsiumreview 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support assuming that it hasn't been used before. I'm surprised this didn't pop up in the archives. I'm also impressed with your link choices. When I first saw it, I was worried that I would just find four links to WP:BOLD, but the links were well chosen. Very nice. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I link the links, good message SpitfireTally-ho! 21:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Come on, Step it up!

Another brawl taunt, but from Sonic. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - straight to the point. Simply south (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Not much to it, but it is passable. By the way, shouldn't the "s" in "step" be lowercase? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. It’s pretty conventional, but works well. I actually like how "Step" is capitalized. It sort of makes the phrase, well, bolder. But if grammatical issues get in the way, you should change it. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan 22:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Nothing that is complete breathes.

Edit two, tTrying to get the same message across but using a different quote, as per my oppose, if you would prefer if I didn't start this as an edit, rather as a separate motto then I would be happy to change it from an edit to a separate motto, depending what people think SpitfireTally-ho! 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I personally think it should be a different motto, as it is so different from what you started with. I'm also not sure I understand. What do you mean "nothing that is complete breathes?" Are you trying to say that the only things that are complete are dead things, inanimate objects and anaerobic bacteria? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, changed it to a diffrent motto. Yes, the motto is saying that if wikipedia was "complete" (i.e. perfect) the there would be no need for people to edit it and thus it would be "dead", SpitfireTally-ho! 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Oppose - Yeah, going to have to oppose this one. It's such a downer. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose You know, I'd hate to think about the death of Wikipedia. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Its not saying we should look forward to wikipedia's death, rather that we should rejoice in its imperfections, for they are what save it from death, odd though it may sound! SpitfireTally-ho! 09:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Nothing is complete or perfect in this universe, so this quote seems good to me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - Why is nothing complete or perfect? What makes you think that? I have seen examples of both perfection and completion in my daily life, from the mundane (a correctly finished crossword puzzle) to the sublime (a fantastic symphony, with every note placed just so). Why would you say there is nothing complete or perfect in "this" universe? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay... I'd like to express myself in another way, "Nobody living is complete or perfect." Are your puzzle or symphony breathing? In any case, what is perfect and how do we know what perfection is? Who decides what perfection is? What a complicated, but interesting subject, Nutik! Maybe next time we talk about the "completeness". –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is. Suggest linking whole thing to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the moto is too downcast to become a moto of the day. It is an effort to laugh a bit at ourselves, celebrate our achievements, and foster a sense of community, that is the description of moto of the day. Do you laugh at the death of Wikipedia? Do you celebrate the death of Wikipedia? Does the death of Wikipedia foster a sense of community? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment observe my comment above. SpitfireTally-ho! 15:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I get what you mean, but I still think that if it was put up as a moto, some people would think it was referring to the death of Wikipedia. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Nothing that is complete breathes.

Edit 1 per Chamal. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened Both original and edit 1 per lack of consensus.--LAAFansign review 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I'm sorry, I just can't support it. I admit that this link is an improvement over the original, but I still don't like the motto itself. It implies that all life is incomplete and imperfect, and that is something that I just cannot agree with. Such a thought either makes perfection impossible, which I do not believe, or relagates it to the spiritual, which I most emphatically don't believe. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

no Declined Original and Approved Edit 1 per general consensus.--LAAFan 00:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Today I am The Luckiest Man On The Face Of The Earth

Lou Gehrigs words in his luckiest man speech i feel that this is a good motto and should be used on his birthday or July 4th . BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose How is this relevant to Wikipedia? --I dream of horses (T) @ 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Today I am the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

Same thing, only linked to make it relevant to Wikipedia.

  • Oppose both - Where is the quote from? It's still not really relevant either, I think. Smaug123 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply; its from Lou Gehrig and i reworded the first one to be more releveant to wikipedia BigPadresDude 03:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose both - Neither of these suggestions are relevant to Wikipedia, nor do they carry any particuliar message, nor are they especially good quotes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

no Declined both (no concensus) Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

→ We have so much to be thankful for...

This is, obviously, for Thanksgiving of 2009. I shuffled how I should word this back and forth in my head, but decided that the best way would be the most straightforward and in the sprit of the holiday. So there you have it.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - As much as I like the food, and having an excuse to visit with family, I really hate the idea behind Thanksgiving. Still, the motto itself isn't bad, and since it could easily be construed as thanking the Editors, I'm OK with it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Great message and link. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 26, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Despise the enemy strategically, but take him seriously tactically.

Found it on brainyquote.com Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose the second link works in a way but this quote sounds like both WP:BITE and WP:INSULT. Simply south (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ~ I'm not sure this is a quote from Mao. It is unsourced and it is reported to be one of his concepts. Anyway, I think that the first link does not work fine. What about using WP:WARNING instead? I know that's not really a form of contempt (it is not at all), but it is certainly a strategy. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I have to agree with Simply South on this one, I feel that this quote sends a very bad message about the way we should treat vandals. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (per WP:SNOW). Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL VANDALS:
If you want your edits to last,
Don't hit "refresh".

This one just sort of hit me, spur of the moment. I hope the motto’s message is clear. I’m trying to say that blatant vandalism doesn’t last very long on Wikipedia, and hitting refresh is usually enough to see it go away (if you get my drift).  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I get the message, but I don't like this motto for two reasons. First, I don't think we should be directly addressing vandals (even in general) with mottos. Second, it could be construed as saying that vandalism is alright as long as you only do it once and then let it get reverted, which is obviously not a message we want to send. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Nutiketaiel, I don't think motos should be addressing vandals. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

no Declined (per WP:SNOW). Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

→ One determined person can make a significant difference;
But a small group of determined people
Can change the course of history.

This is my first MOTD nomination (and contribution to Wikipedia in general) in weeks, since I have been very busy with other matters. Anyway, It looks like I'm back where I left off.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Good moto but I'm not sure what the contents of Wikipedia has got to do with the course of history. Support if the last link is removed. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

no Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

→ One determined person can make a significant difference;
But a small group of determined people
Can change the course of history.

Edit 1. Here's a link change for "the course of history" that I think works a lot better than what I previously had.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I like this one, it is an excellent quote and sends a great message. Incidentally, I would have been fine with the original linking (there's nothing wrong with a little hyperbole in mottos, WVRMad), but I'm throwing my support behind this edit as it is just as good and seems more likely to generate consensus. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Great quote and I think that the last link is an improvement over the original version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The original was fine but I think that this is better. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't for you, there would be nothing.

Edit 1 – Inspired by above discussion. If it wasn't for Wikipedians, there wouldn't be Wikipedia. --I dream of horses (T) @ 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Should we not use the subjunctive mood, making the correct motto "If it weren't for you..."? Dendodge T\C 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Nutiketaiel, I don't think this moto is any better than the original. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 07:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don’t think Wikipedia should be linked to "nothing."  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - What about if the link on nothing was removed. The link for you is better than the original anyway. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Another Suggestion: Or what if "nothing" was linked to WP:ANARCHY?  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened Both original and edit 1 per no consensus.--LAAFansign review 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk declined (no consenus) Secret Saturdays (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

→ Thou who hast
The fatal gift of beauty

George Gordon Byron (1788–1824), Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Canto IV (1818). All linked to WP:TFA (Wikipedia:Today's featured article). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Support although i think there have been a lot of featured article ones lately. Below is one where i think it would work even better. Simply south (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good motto. The second version is my favourite though. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

→ Thou who hast
The fatal gift of beauty

alternative 1 Simply south (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Quite strong support - Today's featured picture is not often used as a link, I think this is a great opportunity to link a different area of Wikipedia! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I prefer this one slightly to the original, as featured pictures are rarely linked to here, but both would be equally acceptable. I wonder, though, about the original context. Specifically, why is the gift of beauty "fatal" in this quote? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    Comment: Well, George died in 1824, so we can not ask him why the gift of beauty is fatal. A teacher of English literature or a Byron scholar such as John Mortimer will be able to answer your question better than me. IMHO, it is something proceeding from fate, destiny, something that is sometime inevitable and uncontrollable... something that happens. I also think that in the 19th century plastic surgery had not yet been invented. What about removing that fatal word? I'm kidding!!! (^___^) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    Reply - Well, maybe we shouldn't use it if we don't understand the original context; we might be misusing the quote. I'm changing my position to Oppose. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    Beauty is fatal means it is maginficent to look at. Simply south (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    Context: Childe Harold depicts the travels of a young, melancholic, and disillusioned Byronic [anti-]hero (in this case is Byron himself) around the Mediterranean, and it expresses the Byron's view of the man's concept of perfection that we can not attain. So the theme of "perfection" (or imperfection) is among us again, Nutik. Those lines are part of the Byron's translation of a sonnet written by Italian poet Vincenzo da Filicaja (1642–1707):
    Italia, Italia! O tu cui feo la sorte
    Dono infelice di bellezza, ond’hai
    Funesta dote d’infiniti guai
    Che in fronte scritti per gran doglia parte.
    The subject is the “beauty of Italy”.
    The following is the original context (Canto IV, Stanza XLII):
       Italia! O[h] Italia! thou who hast
       The fatal gift of beauty, which became
       A funeral dower of present woes and past,
       On thy sweet brow is sorrow ploughed by shame,
       And annals graved in characters of flame.
       Oh God! that thou wert in thy nakedness
       Less lovely or more powerful, and couldst claim
       Thy right, and awe the robbers back, who press
    To shed thy blood, and drink the tears of thy distress;
    I hope this can help, but I also think that we may use quotes regardless of their original context and meaning. We can use them for our purposes, they must be "immediate" and express something that is supposed to be of interest and suitable for our project. I think that it is not a problem if their interpretations are totally opposite to the original meaning as conceived and intended by their authors... but this is just my opinion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    Reply - Thanks, you guys, for indulging me by providing all this info. I'm withdrawing my opposition and changing my opinion to Neutral, as I do not like this quote, but I think that is a product of my hatred for poetry in general, and I do not think that is sufficient reason to oppose a motto. So, go for it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Support. The link is good, but I'm confused as to how the "fatal" aspect relates to the link in any way.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Per above, Featured Picture is almost never linked in MOTD. Great motto--LAAFansign review 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

recycle Reopened Per no consensus.--LAAFansign review 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support alternative 1 per LAAFan. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Edit 1 and no Declined Original per consensus.--LAAFansign review 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

→ I have not failed;
I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

This is a great quote by Thomas Edison, and I thought it would make a good MOTD as well. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - Fantastic motto, perfect for Wikipedia, and the links are quite expertly chosen. Well done. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support ~ Fantastic quote and fabulous links. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 17, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

→ A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

Simply south (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support quite clever. 67.180.161.183 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Not bad, not bad. I think it encourages a degree of civility in our dealings, which is definitely a good thing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 16, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) –Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_24&oldid=1190243172"