This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

This is my first attempt at a rhyming motto. Hopefully I can pull this off.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support ~ lol ~ I like it. Good one! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Very clever, and a good message. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support! - Well done! WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 23:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has got any article on the song but here are the lyrics. Any ideas to improve the links? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as is although I'm a bit unsure on the last link. Simply south ( talk) 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think the last link is appropriate enough. Normally, I'm not that keen on repeating links, but they do serve to drive the point home with this motto, so I'm OK with it. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ I like it so much! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Finding it hard to put this one into explanatory terms, but I'm sure you can figure it out for yourselves. Pr3st0n ( talk) 23:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Its pretty tastless, and to be honest I think of my "real" friends as more important than my "wiki-friends". Furthermore Wikipedia isn't solely a place for socialising. Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think of my real friends in the same way too. It's just one of those lame, but weird wiki-phrases that I concocted, to show there's such thing as wiki-friends too, just to make them feel special in their own little way. Pr3st0n ( talk) 13:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia isn't solely a place for socialising, however, we do come across some good-natured people throughout the talk pages, both user talk, and article talk. And those are the people I call "wiki-friend", people who are there to lend a helping hand at that hour of need. Pr3st0n ( talk) 14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I see the message you're trying to get across, but I agree with Spitfire that the motto is a bit tasteless and doesn't really send a great message. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per above. The message has potential, but it needs better wording.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Any ideas on how to improve it would be gratefully received. Pr3st0n ( talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion ~ Granted that I find it very interesting, why not linking Wiki-friends or the whole phrase to WP:FRIENDS??? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I don't think it would help. I still wouldn't support it, I know that much. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Tennyson (1809–1892), The Princess: Prologue (1847). I'm not sure about the link I've used for "sweet as English air"→(Wikipedia:Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica). Alternatively, it can be linked to WP:2→(Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge), or unlinked. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose in its current form. The link for "sweet as English air" makes no sense." Removing it would garner my weak support. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed link for sweet as English air as per Nutiketaiel's suggestion. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak Support per my above. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling WP:AFD "little wilful thorns" makes it look like a bad thing IMO. Also, excuse my stuidity, but does it mean that an FC can be sent to AFD (which is very unlikely)? ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 12:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Confused Reply - But I thought WP:AFD was a bad thing.  :-P Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Enlightened Reply - You should only say that indirectly in long rants or you will become an extremist inclusionist :) ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Philosophical Question - Ah, thank you for your words of wisdom. And tell me, is being an extremist inclusionist bad for some reason, Sifu? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You will be regarded as an enemy by extremist deletionists, which will be bad for you in the long run, particularly when you run for arbcom ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 06:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Matter-of-Fact Reply - But I am an enemy of extremist deletionists, and I don't want to run for ArbCom. I don't even want to be an Admin. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I have to agree with the above oppose. AFD should not be referred to as 'little wilful thorns' regardless if you are an inclusionist or exclusionist.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 15:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Really Deep Philosophical Question - Why? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't believe AFD choose be portrayed in a bad light. I am not an exclusionist, but if an article does not meet notability guidelines, perhaps it is for the best that it be deleted. Many users contribute to AFD because this is a sensitive subject whether articles should be deleted, but Motto of the Day should not be used a way of saying AFD is not a good process (regardless of personal opinion). I would strong oppose any motto that portrays an area of Wikipedia in a negative light, regardless if it is AFD, RFPP, AIV, DYK (you know where I'm going with this). Cheers.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - You have an excellent point, but I would argue that, despite my own bias against AfD, that this motto does not portray it in a negative light. I think that this motto, in its current form and taken as a whole, portrays deletion as a bad thing without portraying AfD as bad. After all, we can disagree on whether AfD is necessary or good, but I think we can all agree that it is a bad thing when it is necessary to delete an article (even if you think the article should never have been created in the first place). I just disagree with your interpretation of that particular point of the motto. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I see your point, but I still don't support AFD. How about WP:Deletion Policy instead?-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestions: I'm an inclusionist and I think that human knowledge, which is very scarce, must be shared in general, and added and retained on Wikipedia. But I can see your point of view. Inspired by "your point of view" ... What about:
  • WP:DE, WP:DISRUPT (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing)
  • WP:POINT, WP:GAME (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)
  ...for little wilful thorns? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above, linking little wilful thorns to AFD doesn't work. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 - Per LAAFan's suggestion, above. Makes the same point as the original, but hopefully in a manner that would be less objectionable to Deletionists. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support As my comments above, I like this version much better.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support - better than original version. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ better version. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone link them for me please. :D -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question - I... don't understand. Why would you edit the French Wikipedia in Russian? It makes no sense. What is this motto trying to say? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 19:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to say that Wikipedia is a diverse community, having over 150 languages, and such. Now that I think of it, it really isn't a great motto after all... -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just realized my own opposition may not be clear in context. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose What? I don't get it. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think the French Wikipedia would like you writing tons of articles in Russian. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 07:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Cheers (^____^)! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - What do you mean, exactly? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Cheers, cin cin, salut, santé, saúde, skål, but, more precisely, prost because it's a German beer (^___^). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Irritated Reply - Yes, all that is very nice. Now, what is your opinion on the motto? Do you support it or oppose it? Do you have suggestions for it? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • IRRITATED??? /o\ Oh why are you irritated, Nutik? I was just kidding!!! Probably you know... with a few rare exceptions, I don't oppose mottos. To answer to your question, I think that this motto is not good enough, and I don't know how to improve it. Maybe by linking to French and Russian Wikipedia? Or by changing the phrase to
          "[[WP:EDITOR|He]] can also edit [[|English. In [[Help:Wikitext examples|Wikitext]]" (without referring to the pale lager)
          Anyway, I don't like it. SRRY! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Reply - I was irritated because you weren't making any sense, and I had no idea what you were trying to say. If you don't think a motto is good enough, why wouldn't you oppose it? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Reply ~ It's a good question, Nutik. Well, you know, I sometimes close the nominations and archive the discussions, so I oppose to nominations only if [IMHO] it is absolutely necessary. But, this quote was so strange that I would liked to write something and without expressing my opinion.
              Suggestion ~ I got an idea. What about linking the whole phrase to InterWiki, Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links, Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects, Help:Interlanguage links, Wikimedia Commons ... ??? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Reply - The statement itself still wouldn't make sense. Links don't help if the motto is non-sensical. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Nice reference, too! 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened Per no consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined Per WP:SNOW-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Representation of WP:BEANS. 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - ...Wow. You know, it took me a little while to decide on this one. On the one hand, it is funny, and WP:BEANS is an essay that is useful and well written, but not often used here at MoTD, so it gets across a good message. On the other hand, it is kind of an odd structure for a motto, and we rarely use ones that are so... blatant. In the end, I came down on the support side because it does link to a great essay and there's nothing wrong with a fresh idea and a fresh way of looking at the mottos. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Ha ha ha! WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Funny and original. Good one!  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ At first I was puzzled about this suggestion. Then I read Nutik's comment and I agree with him. Why not? It's funny!!! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 12, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This one's about "staying cool when the editing gets hot."  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A great moto with great links, a perfect moto for Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals! WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. Simply south ( talk) 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The motto gets across an excellent message in a clever way. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support ~ Very well done!!! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 11, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's alright. A little blah, but not bad. Save it for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ Maybe "story" could be linked to WP:PAGE (Help:Page history] or to WP:DEV (Wikipedia:Article development). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The theme of this motto is very familiar, but I like the wording a lot.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support/Comment - I really like it, the subject is often used by motos but I think this is very good. My only problem is that it says make yours, isn't that implying that someone owns an article? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 10, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an Afghani proverb, essentially saying you should try to do new things. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I like the sentiment, but I worry that the literal English translation fails to carry the proper meaning of the proverb. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Your concerns are valid, as I got this from Wikiquote. However, I doubt we'd get any decent translation online, anyway. Hopefully, this is close enough not to ghastly offend someone fluent in Afghani, or who grew up in Afghanistan. I'm not if somebody makes a mistake in English, even if s/he is a native language speaker. Any comments about this? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Well, if you got it from Wikiquote, it's probably the best we can find. However, I am posting a request for assistance over at Wikiproject Afghanistan; maybe they can throw a native speaker our way to help us out on this one. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ I like it. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know what the problem is with the translation (I don't speak Afgani)! Apart from that I think it's a great moto, it's a interesting change from English or Latin. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good proverb.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 9, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We should all know by now that good old Shakespearian proverb "To be, or not to be... that is the question", well this is a more modern wikipedian version. It basically reflects those days when we think to ourselves, "am I in the mood to edit something, or not?" Pr3st0n ( talk) 03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose in its current form, I'd be Neutral if it were to be changed to To be, or not to be... That is the question, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the quote was probably used before (see WP:MOTD/FREQUENT).  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a search for (to be) in all the archives yesterday, but couldn't find it Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 06:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to it being tweaked a little, if anyone has a suggestion! Pr3st0n ( talk) 13:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Spitfire and Pr3st0n. I did another search and found both it (that is To be or not to be) and variations of it. See Archive 6, Archive 13, Archive 3, Archive 5 and a few other archives. Simply south ( talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - It's been used before, sorry! WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The motto carries no relevant meaning, it is just a re-phrasing of Shakespeare to no purpose. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• Oppose This doesn't seem to relate to wikipedia in anyway...? Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don’t see how this quote relates to Wikipedia at all, and I can’t think of any links that can fix that.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I would have said, "Wikipedia articles are like wildfire, so easy to modify, and yet so hard to stop. Pr3st0n ( talk) 13:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined per WP:SNOW.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This one's OK. Simple and straightforward, which is good sometimes, the links fit (and don't lead to the obvious article development links) and remind people of the availability of wiki-adoption, which is an important wiki-public service. Wow, is it just me or can you put "wiki" in front of anything and make it apply? Maybe we should start doing that to mottos when we find a quote that doesn't seem to apply to Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ Straight and to the point! Well done, LAAFan. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support per above.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Good moto. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 18:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Parody of classic Lifetouch ads. 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I've never heard of Lifetouch, but the link fits with the quote, and it sends people to the missing article page, which is a good tool to remind users of, so it's alright. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - links well and with an interesting area. Simply south ( talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support ~ very very good one! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 23:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that if you are don't have anything to do or unsure what to do, there are always open tasks. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This one is great. It's funny, it's well linked, it's relevant, and it informs editors of a great resource they can use to find ways to help the Wiki. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's amusing and so it catches the eye, but under that it has the great WP:OPEN link, which is, as Nuti says, a brilliant resource, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 12:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. I like that link too!!! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant linking.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south ( talk) 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mohandas Gandhi.Show the purpose of wikipedia in the way of how we act and the purpose of knowledge. Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support; Great quote! It's a good enough statement not to need links. Smaug123 ( talk) 10:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support; wonderful quote! This should go under the "In review" section instead of under the special nominations, though. -- UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support; try adding some links. — M C 10| Sign here! 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened (no consensus) Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 12:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose No links. I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But it's such a good quote, does it really need to be tied into WP? Smaug123 ( talk) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose - Yes, it really does need to be tied in to Wikipedia. These are mottos for the encyclopedia, after all, so if the quote's relevance to Wikipedia is not clear just from reading it, it needs links. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened (Note: I have moved this quote from the Special nominations page.) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The quote is good, but it's not really related to Wikipedia. If we use a quote with no links, it should be obvious what it means about Wikipedia. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This might work so edit 1. Simply south ( talk) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support - These links are perfect. Well done. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Suppport – once the links are in, the quote is fine. — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L• EM) 02:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support!!! Quotes like this deserve to be featured as a Today's MotD! Very well done!!! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 and  Declined original per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

-- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support I really like this one. Should this article be a featured article? Are you sure? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Quite strong support - Per I dream of horses. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's fairly bland, but passable. I have also taken the liberty of correcting the arrow link from " Sure (company)" to " Sure (brand)." Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ I don't like the idea of using advertising slogans, but it's "passable". – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Upon further consideration, I must oppose this motto. It seems to imply that the decision to make an article Featured is a vote (i.e., a simple show of hands), when it is not- it is a discussion designed to reach an informed consensus of editors. The motto doesn't accurately reflect the way we do things and sends a bad message. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 4, 2009 (per bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't like Pepsi. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very weak support My only complaint is that it's sooo long. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - It's a bit long winded but the motto is ok. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - OK, these advertising mottos are starting to get out of hand, and this one is just too rediculous for me. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nutiketaiel, I was sure that you were going to write something about advertising slogans (^___^). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I don't mind advertising slogans (in moderation), provided that they're well written and, with appropriate links, contain a clear relevance to Wikipedia. This one is not well written, and its relevance to Wikipedia is questionable at best, even with links. Also, :-P Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ I really don't like it, but I think that it will intrigue/stimulate readers. What about changing the last link to point to WikipediA, and then to add the appropriate links for each of the other words in the slogan? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll take the bait - What, exactly, is an appropriate link for "coolfizzin?" Or, for that matter, "goodbuzzin?" I'm not even sure what "goodbuzzin" is supposed to mean. How about "lipsmackin?" Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply: lol ~ That is the problem here (^____^)!!! But it would be cool. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Cool though it might be, the problem remains- what would be appropriate links for these nonsense words? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 3, 2009 (per bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Based off the "With great power..." quote. Made it up here, figured I might as well put it here. A little insignificant ( talk) 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support and suggestion Maybe there should be a link for "Coffee breaks"? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  I couldn't think of one, that's why I didn't include a link, but I agree it would be better if there was one. Are there any fun (and acceptable) activities admins aren't allowed to do? A little insignificant ( talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps WP:DOF? 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  I think that would work great! Thanks, I've included it. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 23:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stong support/Suggestion - Great twist! How about an arrow to spiderman ( →) as that's were the start of the moto comes from? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 07:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

   Done! A little insignificant ( talk) 14:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  Changed the arrow to Stan Lee, as he wrote the line itself. A little insignificant ( talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong suppport - As for the coffee break thing, maybe you could link to WP:TEA. Glacier Wolf 17:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  Would that be saying that admins are underappreciated? I love the essay itself, though. A little insignificant ( talk) 19:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  Meh, just throwing stuff out there. :P Glacier Wolf 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  I went ahead and included it. People can make what they want of it. Thanks! A little insignificant ( talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - It seems to me to be discouraging WP:TEA, when there is nothing wrong with Tea for Admins or anyone else. Additionally, I think "fewer coffee breaks" would be more correct. Also, I'm pretty sure it's "with great power," not "with more power" Finally, why do we need to mangle the original quote in this way? What's wrong with just the original quote without the coffee reference? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry about the link to WP:TEA, I guess it's not necessary, I've removed it and corrected the grammar. I added the coffee part to make it funnier, as I prefer humor. I know the original quote uses the word "great", but it didn't make as much sense for the joke and isn't necessary to recognize the quote. I never intended to mangle it.

  I'm trying to include every suggestion I'm given, and I'm sorry if I can't make everyone happy. I will say that the quote itself without the joke strikes me as recycled and bland, and I would not support it in a discussion. A little insignificant ( talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about the tea reference. That was my idea, and a bad one at that. Glacier Wolf 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • • • Reply - Glacier, Insignificant, you guys don't need to apologize for your ideas just because somebody else disagrees with them. I'm sorry if I came off a little bit angry, "mangle" was probably a poor choice of words. I thank you for addressing my concerns. However, my position remains Strong Oppose per Pjoef's revelation below that the main portion of the quote has been used before. As a general rule, I do not support reusing mottos unless we are absolutely, totally and in all other ways out of ideas entirely. Admittedly your joke does change the motto, but in my opinion not enough to differentiate it from the last time it was used. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been used before in 2007. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I don't get why this would affect anything. That was over two years ago. People have joined since, and a lot of people have probably forgotten we've used this quote. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Strictly speaking, we don't have a policy of not reusing mottos. There's nothing to stop you from reccomending one, and nothing to stop everyone from supporting it and, should it gain consensus, nothing to stop it from being approved and used. I personally, however, will not support a motto that has been used before untill we run completely out of ideas. There are so many possible mottos out there that I just don't think we need to be repeating them yet. I think, whether people remember the old one or not (and I agree with you, they probably won't), it sets a bad precedent and may lead us to simply cherrypicking through old mottos when we hit a slow patch, rather than putting on our thinking caps and coming up with new ones (or recruiting more editors to help us). My position of opposing reused mottos is a personal one, but it's one I think other editors share. My Strong Oppose stands; if you can achieve consensus over my disagreement, I will not object further as clearly the consensus will then be behind you, but that won't stop me from opposing the next repeat motto either. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  I do want to make it clear that I didn't know it had been used before when I suggested this. I wasn't trying to get away with an old motto during a bout of writer's block or something, I just thought of it, liked it, decided why not. Judging by the rest of the page, I don't think there's such a shortage of mottos that anyone has to pick and grab at old ones, and I don't think anyone has, but I'm not familiar with this area of Wikipedia, so it might be going on all the time and I don't know. A little insignificant ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • • • • Reply- I wasn't implying that you had done so; indeed, I have no doubt that you thought up the motto yourself. One of my concerns, however, is that if we allow a reused motto now, people will start looking for reusable mottos whenever we start running low. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  I see exactly what you mean. That is an important thing to avoid, and we shouldn't promote it. On the other hand, nobody knew it had been used before until Pjoef went looking for it. A little insignificant ( talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • • • • • • Reply - That is true, but it does not invalidate my concern, since we are all aware of it now. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I don't mind it being used before, because technically, you changed it, and made it funnier. 67.180.161.183 ( talk) 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 2, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 per Nutiketaiel. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Per above, namely Pjoef's discovery that the quote has been used before. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, stated above. A little insignificant ( talk) 17:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support It's okay, bland though. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A quote from Walt Disney. It's one of my favorites because it tells you that you can go beyond the duty of other people (in a good way of course). Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but it has no clear relevance to Wikipedia as it is currently written. Links are needed. Also, an arrow link to Walt Disney if he is the source of the quote. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Inserted space between arrow and motto. :D Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 12:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This needs links, which I've added below. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - What has the moto got to do with Wikipedia. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 per I dream of horses - How does everyone think of this? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary Neutral - Not sure I like the idea of linking boldness to impossibility... maybe it will grow on me, though. Need to think about it some more. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ I'm not totally convinced by this one. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Yeah... never did grow on me. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - How can being be bold be impossible? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2 per Smaug123 ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Yeah, it's fun to write your first article, but I'd imagine it's a lot of hard work, too! -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't like linking "impossible" to the creation of someone's first article. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I think this is the best of the versions but it's weird to say writing you first article is impossible. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened all - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 21:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined All three versions per WP:SNOW and lack of interest. (no votes in over two weeks.)-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

From the episode, The Firebending Masters. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's alright, though the arrow link should be to " Avatar: The Last Airbender" rather than to " Aang." Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ It's ok... but does it not need a link for the 2nd part? (I take the liberty to change the arrow link to point to " Avatar: The Last Airbender") – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Personally, I don't think a link to the second part would improve it. What link did you have in mind? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  What about Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Collaboration??? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • • • Reply - I'd appreciate it if you didn't change the formatting of my comments. >:-( Back to the matter at hand, I don't see how Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Collaboration fits with "felt by the present." Could you clarify? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This just seems like a promotion for the History Wikiproject. That isn't the point of MOTD.-- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  The reason I put wikiprohect history was because that was the only Wiki page that I found to be connected to this link. If you don't like it, just change the link on the quote. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

  • • Reply - Plugging a specific project is not the point of MotD, that is true. However, I see no harm in it. We've done it plenty of times before, and if the quote is appropriate and the link is appropriate to it, what's wrong with including it? If even one editor joins the project after being made aware of it by our motto and, in so doing, becomes a more active or effective editor, then we've done a good thing. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Not very interesting, but OK. As for linking to a wikiproject, the point of MOTD is to raise awareness on different areas of wikipedia, and that includes wikiprojects. It's not like they are paying us to do it, and if they get some attention because of this, it's a plus for wikipedia. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - What do you mean, not paying us? They offered me 3 barnstars and 23 wiki-cookies if I helped get their motto through. Or were you not counting bribes?  ;-) Nutiketaiel ( talk) 14:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh those... When they gave me those, I didn't think they counted as payment. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 03:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - Well, if you didn't think they counted, does that mean I can have your cookies? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - Per above. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per majority consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A quote from FDR. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support + Suggestion: What about replacing "United States" with "Wikimedia projects"? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I think this quote is fine just the way it is. Pjoef, are you suggesting changing the link behind "these United States," or are you actually suggesting that the quote be changed? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  Reply: Both! I was suggesting to change the quote from "these U.S." to "these Wikimedia projects", and, subsequently, to change its link. We may also change it simply with Wikipedia. I know that you don't like very much to change the original quote, but I was trying to disassociate Wikipedia from the U.S., and the reason is explained below by Spitfire. Isn't good: "I do not look upon Wikipedia as a finished product. We are still in the making."??? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Reply- Oh, I see. Well, as you probably predicted, I would be strongly opposed to your proposed change, as I think we should not be rewording quotes in this manner. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I support replacing the United States with Wikimedia projects. It's more "statesy". I did so below. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: its important to remember that not everyone on wikipedia is American, nor (in my opinion) should we identify wikipedia with America. Indeed, wikipedia is a worldwide project. Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - The quote and motto don't say that all Wikipedians are American. It takes a quote about America and makes it relevant to Wikipedia. We do it all the time in other mottos with other concepts, using allegory to make our point. I don't think this one will be misunderstood. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - I doesn't say we (Wikipedians) are all Ameriacans anywhere in the moto, it's just using the original quote and linking it to Wikipedia. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 14:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Good idea, but strongly oppose changing the quote itself. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Great moto, I like it as it is. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this want you meant, Pjoef? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I very strongly prefer the original version of this motto, but this version is OK. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - would be Support but I agree with Nutiketaiel, I think the original version is better. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Original motto. Per comments in response to edit 1.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lucretius (ca. 99 BC – ca. 55 BC), De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) (54 BC), and State Motto of the U.S. State of New Mexico. A symbol of dynamic progress. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It is an obscure Latin phrase, but it and the links are appropriate for Wikipedia, and since it is a state motto it isn't all that obscure... besides, it wouldn't make much sense if we just put up the translation. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  Reply: Please check out the arrow link. " Crescit eundo" has its own article, so I think that in this case it is better to have the original quote in Latin, and for those who don't know Latin, which are the majority, the English translation just below. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  Reply - Yes. You'll notice that I did offer support.  :-P Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've noticed (^___^). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support The links and quote are both relevant to Wikipedia. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support: OK. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - per I dream of horses. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 15:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Scene v (1597) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not sure that the racial connotation is something we're looking for, Shakespeare or not. More importantly, though, the links don't make sense to me in the context of the quote. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  (^__^)(^___^)(^____^)(^__________^)....

  “O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
  Her beauty hangs upon the cheek of night
  Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear;
  Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!
  So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows,
  As yonder lady o’er her fellows shows.
  The measure done, I’ll watch her place of stand,
  And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.
  Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
  For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.”

  Romeo needs an excess of comparisons to explain and convey all the Juliet's beauty. Ethiopian women are known for their beauty, and in that line Romeo is comparing Juliet's beauty to a rich jewel that sparkles with the brightest light on a black & beautiful skin. I don't think it's racist or with a racial connotation. It's more about beauty.... I'd like to say "the most beautiful of the beautiful" or "more beautiful than beauty itself." So, the set of links seems good to me. (IMHO obv.) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  MEA CULPA /o\ /o\ /o\ /o\.... I thought you were talking about those two links in the second line related to the "jewel in an Ethiop’s ear" and I have not checked to the links in the first line. I do not remember what I thought when I did this, but it do not make sense to me too /o\. Maybe I did not wanted to repeat FA everywhere. I'm sorry, this is the second time I have made a mistake of this kind /o\. What about using WP:TFA (Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article) for "Her beauty"? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose What? I don't get the quote, never mind the links. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Apart from the issue raised by Nutiketaiel, I don't see how the links relate to each other or the quote. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - What does it mean?!? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 14:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined Per WP:SNOW-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The state motto of Texas. I would like to have it released this December 29, the day Texas became a state. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good message and links. Smaug123 ( talk) 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I like it. Get acquainted with other people, and the community, before becoming an admin. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm fine with it, and it would make sense to use for the day Texas was admitted to the Union. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose ~ This is a great motto and and its message is highly relevant and educational, but from Alabama to Wyoming there are other 49 states and 49 dates. What about the other 200 countries in the world? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 29, 2009 (per consenus) OC-Tex Express ( talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

An edited version of an FDR quote. The originial can be viewed here. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - We should not be "editing" quotes. I can understand removing "American," though it should be replaced with "..." to indicate that something was removed, but "war" should not have been changed to "time." Suggestion below. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 1) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1- I think this gets accross the point that Secret Saturdays was going for. I removed the last part of the quote entirely, as it was innapropriate in its original form, and we should not change it to fit us. Besides, it was unnecessary to the point being made. I added the ellipsis to indicate the removal of the word "American" from the quote. I'm not that keen on altering the quote at all, but if we're going to do it we have to make it clear that we have done so. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I like this quote, and the links go along with it. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is one of the rare instances that I like an edited version of my quote (that doesn't make me a narcissist).

Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Support ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 28, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

-- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support It's okay, a bit bland, though. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Very weak support - Quite bland. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 1) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 – Still bland, but I think the link relates more to the quote with this one. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I would say better than before. Simply south ( talk) 15:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Better than the original. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Better than the other suggestion, but still not that great, provided we have never used it previously. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Nutiketaiel. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 27, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

-- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I like it, but it's just a wee politically incorrect. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but the link should be disambiguated to Frank Perdue or Perdue Farms. -- UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - Pretty good but the arrow should be directed elsewhere. ↑P.S: Someone forgot to sign the above comment.↑ WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -  Done I have changed the link to Frank Perdue as the article mentions this moto, unlike the Perdue Farms article. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Again, bland but passable. Save it for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ Again, I agree with Nutiketaiel... and with Buckethead and the "ongoing chicken holocaust". – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 26, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 – This better? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose; while tough women can also make tender chickens, I would prefer not altering the original quote. -- UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't think it really matters if you don't keep the exact phrase, (even though it's nice to do so). However, women can make just as 'tender chickens' as men! WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - We should ABSOLUTELY NOT be rewriting direct quotes, no matter how politically incorrect some people may find them. We need to use the original quote, or drop it entirely, not mangle it just because some people forget that "man" can be a gender neutral term. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Little Joke for Nutiketaiel: We should use " Pan sapiens"!!! ... Chickens, bonobos,... This place is becoming a zoo (^___^)! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Confused Reply - I don't get it. What monkeys? Do you mean "Pan" in the original sense of the word, or "Pan" in a taxonomic sense? Either way, I still don't get it. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Pan sapiens, the word "Pan" is the genus. I wrote the link to the Taxonomy section in the Bonobo's article. It says that Pan species are the closest living relatives of humans and some scientists argue that their genus name should be classified as Homo paniscus, or, alternatively, that humans should be re-classified as Pan sapiens. (or something like that ~ it's in that article.) Two months ago, for the first time the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) have released 9 bonobos back into the wild!!! As I always do, I consulted Wikipedia to know more about bonobo. Anyway, they were just my stupid thoughts about humans... when I read your words about "man"... "bonobo" and "Pan sapiens" come back into my mind. We all are bonobo (^___^) (w/out offence obv.) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply - Oh. I see. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

-- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support As a recent change patroller, edit summaries make things easier. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Per I dream of horses. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yay! No opposes on any of my suggestions! This just made my day! -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't really see why "home" is linked to WP:EDIT. I understand the connection in the larger context of the quote, but it makes no direct sense to link it that way on its own. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So how would we make the quote have more direct sense? -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 07:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Reply - I'm sorry, I just can't think of a way to get across what you're trying to say that would make sense. If I come up with anything, I will suggest it. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ If you consider home as the home page of a website's section, then it makes sense to me. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Yes, that would make sense, but it's not linked to the home page, it's linked to WP:EDIT, which does not really make sense. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support and suggestion I think it would make sense if "leave home" was linked, because then that's using an action to represent the edit. A little insignificant ( talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - ... ... ... Actually, that would make sense. Such a linking would have my support. Why didn't I think of that? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Mwahaha! I intercepted your idea to use it for my own nefarious purposes! :D A little insignificant ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Shocked Reply - Gasp! You diabolical fiend! You'll never get away with this... Nutiketaiel ( talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Question - So, does anybody object to changing the link from "leave home" to " leave home"? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  Do the honors, if you so wish. (I don't have time now. Sadness.) A little insignificant ( talk) 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - OK, I have made the change as per User:A little insignificant's suggestion, having seen no objection, and the motto in its current form has my support. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: A very good job, well done! Thank you all so much! – pjoef ( talk • contribs)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 25, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Links aren't that brilliant... Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I really like the quote. Most of the links are good, but I do have a suggestion- link "sang best" to something like Category:Articles needing expert attention or WP:Expert retention or something like that. This way, it makes the point that not just experts can edit articles. I would suggest WP:EXPERT, but that page is tagged as a failed proposal and probably shouldn't be linked to in a motto. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Great Moto; gets the point out that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Personally, I like this one as is, but I'll go ahead and boldly take Nutiks' suggestion below. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 1) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 – Per Nutik's suggestion with a slight adaptation. I changed the WP:WIKIPEDIA link to the Wikipedia article as well. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A nice version, the moto is great anyway. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support per my above. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Nutiketaiel! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 24, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully makes sense, its basically saying that if we forgive vandals or other users who edit disruptively then we help them to become trusted users, whereas if we don't forgive them then we make it much harder for them to become a trusted user. Also, another one where we don't have an article for the author :\. Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - I'm not sure about the arrow, but moto is ok. The last link isn't the strongest. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This is an excellent motto with perfect links (especially the last link). It sends a fantastic message about how we should be focusing our efforts with vandals. See below for my thoughts on the red link. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support I think this is a perfect application for "Wikiproject user rehab", for user rehab is giving somebody their second to millionth chance to change. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)#
• Support - I've thought about it and changed my mind, the last link is good. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This motto and the one below can be approved per WP:SNOW but I don't know what to do whith those red links. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I think we should leave the redlink in there. It might encourage someone to write the article in question! Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 23, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes.... another WP:BOLD motto, however, its a while since we've had one, also, we don't have a article for the author, and a quick search on google looks like they may not be notable enough, is this a problem? Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I like the motto but I'm not sure what to do if there is no page on the writer, I don't think the broken linked arrow should be kept. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Motto is fine. I'm also OK with a redlink in that context- it encourages editors to create the article maybe. Or you could just make it. Or... OK, maybe the author doesn't have a page, but what about the work that contains the quote, is there a page on that? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I like WP:BOLD quotes, myself. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above + Note: I removed the arrow link, [[Henry S. Haskins|→]], because it's a red link. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I think you should put it back in. Per my above, it might encourage someone to create the article! Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 22, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A quote by me. Inspired by the Renaissance. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Was the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes intentional, or were you going for WP:BARNSTAR or WP:AWARD? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant WP:AWARDS. I shall change it. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Smaug123 ( talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - The links are a little incongruous, but it is OK I guess. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support: if we lose the link to WP:AWARD, in its current state Neutral Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Well, a bit bland, but okay. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 21, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 – Per spitfire. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I prefer this version to the other, but not by much. WP:ABOUT is still an odd link for "knowledge." Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A little quote about how wikipedia should always be free for everyone, links could be better, any idea's? Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 12:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support ~ I thought about something like the connection between Article(s) and Editor(s) ( WP:WIAA- WP:EDITORS) and the ownership of an article, but I like it as it is! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I really like the message, but that WP:Dear Reader "essay" is really bad. Is there any page we could link to that would get the point across better? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support and improve the Dear Reader essay because it has so much potential. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support/Suggestion Gets the message that Wikipedia is free across well; however, couldn't the Dear Reader link be WP:EDITORS? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 20, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1. Slightly adapted, inspired by Pjoef. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The last line makes no sense with this change. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, the earth doesn't own the sun even after millions of years. The sun doesn't ask the earth to own it. You have a legitimate point, though. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2. Per myself, inspired by Nutiketaiel and Pjoef. The WP:Dear Reader is pretty bad so I changed the link. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is probably the best motto, honestly. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose why should we owe wikipedia? I don't see the message, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is definitely an improvement over the last version. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Encourages people to give out awards, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like a good one to me. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Nice idea. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Nothing like encouraging people to give out barnstars. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 14:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ I like it, but I think that the 2nd half needs some links. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that by editing enough articles here has changed the way I think about things. When I look at the news, I think, "What is the source of that? What is the POV of that?" or when I read things in books, I do the same thing. I want to see the reference material. It has really made a difference in the way I view the world. Hires an editor ( talk) 12:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It is an interesting perspective. I like it, and think it is worth using. I know some of you are going to complain about the lack of links, but it would be very hard to find appropriate links for this motto, and its relevance to Wikipedia is clear on its own. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Anybody can see the reasoning behind this, and... I likez. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Same here. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 17:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support I know exactly what you mean! A little insignificant ( talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I like this one, the lack of links doesn't bother me a lot, although it would be nice to find some, I suspect that we don't have any appropriate essays for the motto, so I'm happy to support it as it is Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Horace (Venosa, 8 December 65 BC – Rome, 27 November 8 BC), Odes, 1.11, (23 BC). "carpe diem quam minimum credula postero." ("Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow.") – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Great idea - although if someone's signed up to MOTD then surely they're already going to have an account? Smaug123 ( talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Most likely you are correct, but they are also seen by anybody who visits the user page of one of our subscribers- including anonymous users. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support although i wonder why many of your mottos are in Latin? Are you trying to find a loophole with the Frequently Used Ideas section? Btw, this would also work with WP:BOLD but i think without the alternative suggestion (or with) this is better. Simply south ( talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support in its current version. The current link is fine- a link to WP:BOLD would be adequate, but it is overused and the WP:SIGNUP link is better. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: I think we really need to stop having these Latin motto's, by all means, use Latin sayings, but I think they should be translated to English (rather then having the English and Latin alongside). Also this motto strikes me as a bit flavourless, although I think that encouraging people to sign-up is good, I'm sure we could find a better quote for this purpose, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I agree that sometimes we go a little overboard with the Latin, and many of them just seem to be random Latin phrases, but this one actually is a widely used phrase with an excellent meaning to Wikipedia. I say keep this one in latin, and be more discriminating about which Latin quotes we let through in the future. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I like it: Signup to Wikipedia and Seize the Day! I can see Spitfire's point but I think it's a good moto. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Opposing a motto because its' Latin is like opposing an aspiring admin because there are too many administrators already. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: We could probably make that into a motto! "Adversus a motto quoniam Latin est amo adversus admin quoniam illic es quoque plures administrators iam." :D (alright the online translator is a little rusty) Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 10:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 17, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 – Per Simply south. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - It's ok but I think the first version is better. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The unofficial motto of Missouri. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose The link is not really appropriate, but the motto is good. Smaug123 ( talk) 17:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I agree with Smaug, that particular link won't work as the welfare of the people is not really one of Wikipedia's pillars. Perhaps a link to a policy that is more about the welfare of Wikipedians, like Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, would be more appropriate. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Smaug123. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 1) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1. Inspired by Nutiketaiel. I think civility is more of a "law" and WP:BITE is more of an application of it. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support ~ This is my favourite of the three versions. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support A good idea, nice motto! WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Much better link. Smaug123 ( talk) 15:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CIVILITY is a better link than my suggestion, nice work. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support I like the motto, but I dislike that it is in Latin, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 16, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2 per Nutiketaiel, because I think that this link is a good idea, too. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support I like this motto but I prefer edit 1 as it is more general. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 1) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope i'm not coming up with too many similar ones. Simply south ( talk) 13:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose to both ones. Assuming is an active process. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose - WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 1) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 ~ similar alternative. Simply south ( talk) 13:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's very blah, but it is passable provided we haven't used it previously. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ This is better than the other one. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Per Pjoef. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 15, 2009 (per bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet, (15 August 1771 – 21 September 1832), The Dance of Death, IV: SONG (1815) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops... I'm sorry! I've added a link for lightnings glance→ WP:ABF, but I'm not sure about it. Moved up because it was incomplete. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Looks like you missed a link under "lightning," as I see two brackets in there. Did you intend something for that spot? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, but most of the links make little sense to me. " Wheel the wild dance" seems to be encouraging wheel warring, I'm not sure if " lightnings glance" is saying that assuming bad faith is bad or good, " call the brave" references Wikiproject Anti-War, which has nothing to do with edit wars or such but rather deals with articles related to anti-war movements and therefore seems contrary to the rest of the links, and I don't get how " To sleep without a shroud" fit together at all. To be honest, it seems like a verse of poetry with a bunch of semi-random links thrown in. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply: I agree with you 100%. I don't remember when I did it, but I had to do it better. WP:WPA can be replaced by WP:ADMIN, WP:AC/C or WP:AIV. Any other ideas? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Honestly... it would still seem like a bunch of random links. What is the message here, exactly? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think wikiproject anti-war would really appreciate being in such a violent poem. Also, per Nutiketaiel. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: The text concerns the human [dis]ability to make war(s), of course. WP:Anti-War was my mistake (and I'm also [NOT very active] part of that project ///o\\\). Any suggestions are welcome. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Very Dark, it also seems to imply in call the brave, to bloody grave that people who try to stop the lamest edit wars will fail to bloody grave? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Annuit cœptis ("He approves (or has approved) [our] undertaking(s)") is one of two mottos on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. Taken from Roman poet Virgil's Aeneid, book IX, line 869: "Iuppiter omnipotens, audacibus adnue cœptis" ("Jupiter Almighty, favour [my] daring undertakings.") The motto alludes to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the Wikipedia cause (^__^). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Article Validation goes against the open spirit of Wikipedia, and I think we send a bad message by linking to the concept in this fashion. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose/Suggestion - Above reason. How about Annuit coeptis? Has a better link I think. Smaug123 ( talk) 18:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hmmm... I think I would be weakly opposed to that linking as well. It seems to imply that Featured Articles are approved by a single figure. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see what you mean... Smaug123 ( talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Again, I don't think it brings out a real meaning... Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 07:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I don't approve the undertaking of vandals. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Nutiketaiel. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 12:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 per Smaug123. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per my above comment. It seems to imply that Featured Articles are approved by a single figure. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened all (no consensus and/or not enough discussion) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose both: The quote and the link really don't match with how things happen here. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nutiketaiel again. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined ALL (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"How sweet and fitting it is to edit for one's Wiki"

An edited version of Horaces's famous poem. I thought this would be a bit of fun. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I added two versions. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply: I like the second version most, the third doesn't seem right, "How sweet and fitting it is to edit for one's country" with a Hyperlink to Wikipedia on Patria. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 12:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the use of the english words at the end is kind of wierd. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The English is just strange! Sorry... Smaug123 ( talk) 15:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 4) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 with ēdere, to eat but also to publish/edit in Latin, and Wikipedia instead of wiki.

• Weak Oppose - This is the least objectionable of the three versions, but to be honest it's still kind of a wierd quote in my opinion. Especially with the current arrow link. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support/Comment Famous quote, witty twist! However, edere should not have the bar over the first 'e', I think, since it's only there for pronunciation purposes anyway. Smaug123 ( talk) 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 4) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2 the original lines from Horace's Odes, Ode III.2.13-16:

• Strong Oppose - I don't like equating editing to dying. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Nutiketaiel and again, doesn't seem to bring out a real meaning (fourth time I've said this so far.) Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 08:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 4) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened all (no consensus and not enough discussion) + Added fourth version – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit 3 all in English and all linked to Wikipedia. Maybe edit for Wikipedia could be in italics or square bracketed because it differs from the original... and/or we can remove the arrow link??? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Rather smarmy, but good overall and better than the above. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support/Suggestion It's ok but perhaps you could have a hyperlink on to Wikipedia:EDIT and to Wikipedia:Department of Fun on how sweet and fitting it is or something like that? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 4) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 4 per WVRMad. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a good version too. Smaug123 ( talk) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion Could you have an arrow at the beginning to Homer ( →) or Dulce decorum est ( →)? WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I don't see how the links really relate to each other, but otherwise okay. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 14, 2009 (per bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Motto of Oregon written by judge Jesse Quinn Thornton. The official English version of the motto is "She flies with her own wings". – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm confused - an article flies on its own wings? Meaning, it develops itself automatically? — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Well, if you consider an article and its editors/contributors as one... "it flies with its own wings." Isn't a book the expression/the soul of its author(s)? Anyway, I think that having to give explanations for an interpretation of a motto means that it is not good enough to be used here. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - "An article and its editors/contributors as one..." Very zen. What other wisdom to you have for us, Sifu Pjoef? :-P Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Who knows? Only the future will tell.... Thanks for the title, Guru Nutiketaiel (^___^). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per La Pianista's interpretation. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose like Nuti, opposing per La Pianista's interpretation, however, the quote itself is quite nice, can anyone think up a better link? Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 11:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per La Pianista. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south ( talk)

Edit 1 – One [place that does. Simply south ( talk) 09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very Weak Support - The quote is less objectionable this way, but it doesn't really say anything besides reminding people that the watchlist exists. I suppose it's alright for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is basically saying that it changes automatically every day if people give watch Simply south ( talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think its right that every day your watchlist will fill up with the latest contributions and it sometimes seems automatic. However, I agree with User:I dream of horses that it doesn't 'fly' or change itself as it kind of implies in 'with it's own wings'. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 b Simply south ( talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't any of wikipedia flies with it's own wings. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Per I dream of horses. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined ALL (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Lee (1653–1692), The Rival Queens, or the Death of Alexander the Great, Act IV, Scene ii (1677). – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Ummm... this quote doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Could you explain the original context please? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply: Lee is saying that when people of the same kind are opposed, there will be a struggle for supremacy. I tried to be humorous, and, influenced by that game, I interpreted it in a [PRO]positive way (Wikipedians who meet together here for playing a funny fantastic game.) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I didn't understand it either until you explained it. Mottos shouldn't have to be explained except via links. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: I think the same of you, I dream of horses, mottos should not have to be explained. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agreed. Without knowing Lee's original context, the quote makes no sense. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Per I dream of horses WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The state motto of Alabama. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It seems a little odd equating defending rights with defending article quality, but otherwise it makes sense. I'm cool with it. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia readers have a right to have good quality articles. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - I agree with Nutiketaiel, its a bit strange with defending rights and defending article quality. A nice moto though. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 13, 2009 (per bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I got this from Buster7s' page. I'm not sure whether or not this has been used before, or if we need to use that arrow thingy. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Good phrase, good linking. If this is an original quote from a Wikipedian, it would be polite to get his approval before we use it. I would suggest asking him on his talk page if he has any objections to us using it as a motto of the day (in fact, invite him to the discussion). Nutiketaiel ( talk) 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thank you, Editor:horses, for the invite. I 'tweeked" a local advertisers commercial to come up with it. -- Buster7 ( talk) 02:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent suggestion. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ I like it very much! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Nice Moto WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act IV, Scene iv (1623) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I'm not sure what relevance the quote has to banning? Smaug123 ( talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The quote has no relevance to the link. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: like the others, I see no connection between the link and the motto, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Smaug123. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless somebody comes up with a better idea for linking. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined per WP:SNOW. Simply south ( talk) 16:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it hasn't been used yet. I got the line saying by the headmaster in Philosopher's Stone. World Cinema Writer ( talk • contributions) 08:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I like the sentiment, but the phrasing is very awkward; it looks like a paraphrase. Can somebody with a copy of the book find an exact quote so we can use the actual words from Rowling? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Okay, so what about new users? They may be well-meaning, and I'm sure we all try our best to assume they are, but would we give them sysop status anyway? After all, they don't want to use it improperly. What about people who are wonderful contributors, but don't want to be an admin? Do we not appreciate them? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- bad grammar. You can't add an 's' after 'want' because of the 'doesn't' before it. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral per Pjoef. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 02:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral ~ I added the wikilink to the film and corrected the grammar... but I cannot grasp the meaning.... If he doesn't want to use the stone for improper uses... why he can only get a request for administrator attention? Probably, it is better to link to WP:RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship) (and NOT to WP:RFAA (Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention).) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support. Seems fine. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - All things considered, it just seems too awkwardly phrased. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Per I dream of horses. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south ( talk) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From a lot of vandal fighting. Abce2| From the top now! Arggggg! 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - It seems more... instructional than like a motto. Also, Don't insult the vandals. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose calling vandals children seems to be akin to an insult, also the motto doesn't seem to have any particulary deep meaning, except that we should all watchlist Spongebob Squarepants ^^ Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 16:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I think it sends the wrong message out, I don't think its right to say they're vandals, so they're most likely young or vice versa. How do you know that most vandals are children? I'm still a child and I help to contribute to Wikipedia, I don't vandilise it! Surely it puts children off Wikipedia if they think they are going to be followed by users watching their contributions. WP:NEWBIES WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I know it stinks. So I am opposing it. But you understood it wrong. I meant it as that vandals are mostly kids (like 8-12) who enjoy vandalizing. I'm not calling vandals names, or vise versa. Also, I meant keep an eye on articles of major television shows that air on networks the above mentioned would watch, such as Cartoon Network. I'm not trying to insult or offened anyone. Abce2| From the top now! Arggggg! 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment don't worry Abce2, no one thought you were trying to be insulting, its just that we're worried that the motto may be misconstrued by others (the people who have the MotD template on their user pages), Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 09:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Spitfire is right, no one thinks you tried to offend anyone. I see what you mean that vandals are mostly kids who really enjoy vandalizing. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This place for mottos, not instructions. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Declined per WP:SNOW. Simply south ( talk) 16:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, yet another cultural reference, but I think this is a nice sentiment. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Links good, nice sentiment! Smaug123 ( talk) 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I agree. I would like it to be our motto. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)
• Support - Simple and direct, with a good message. I took the liberty of adding in the spacing between the arrow and the quote. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support [for Disco 80's]! ~ I take the liberty of changing the arrow link to point directly to the song. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Nice feel to it, great links. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 08:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 11, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Oh, that's hilarious! Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Quite funny! -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Raises awareness of ER and is funny to boot! Smaug123 ( talk) 14:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ very nice! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 10, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Something i just made up. Simply south ( talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support I get it. Getting an article featured is daunting and rewarding. I should try it sometime. ;-) -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is a good one. It emphasizes the hard work required to get an article to FA status. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: per Nutiketaiel. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Reasons above! Smaug123 ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ We had another good one today. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 9, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tolstoy quote. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - This is the opposite of the message we want to be sending- it seems to be saying that, as long as we have dispute resolution, there will always be war. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yikes - never expected that. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Dispute resolution is the total opposite of a slaughterhouse. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 3) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 per Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This seems to imply that, when you see disruptive editing, the acceptable response is to edit war over it. I'm sorry to keep opposing like this, it is just difficult to think of a set of links that would work for this quote and send an appropriate wikipedia related message. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 3) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2 per Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 06:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - And now it seems to be saying that disputes over the accuracy of an article inevitably lead to edit wars. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I see what you're trying to say, that in many cases as an article develops there will be disputes but that doesn't seem to fit... Simply south ( talk) 13:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of Edit 3) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 3 per Kayau. Nice tease of wars? Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 12:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very Weak Support - This is definitely an improvement over the others. I like the humerous aspect. I still dislike the idea that edit wars are inevitable when there is a dispute over an article, but this set of links at least lampoons them. I don't like it, but I think it can make a valid motto, so I am not opposing it at this time. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support this one, oppose the others. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 8, 2009 (per very bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened all - both no consensus and not enough discussion. Simply south ( talk) 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Edit 3 gets my Support! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A quote from the movie " Dead Poet's Scoiety". It's one of my favorites because it's true. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Strong Support - This is one of those rare quotes that don't need links to establish a relevance to Wikipedia. It might be good to put an arrow link before the quote so people know it came from Dead Poets' Society, but beyond that I'm cool with it as is. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support I'd actually like some links, but I see nothing else wrong with this quote. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - A few links would definitely help. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - Why does it need links? Most of the time, the reason we need links is to establish the motto's relevancy to Wikipedia. This motto is clearly relevant exactly as written, and sends a great message. Why would we need to put in links? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with Nutiketaiel that the quote is fine without links, in fact, its brilliant. The lack of links mean that it can be interpreted in many different ways, depending on one's view, for instance, I could interpret it to be saying that wikipedia, by giving free knowledge to everyone, is changing the world because of its educational value, but then again someone else might see it to be saying something different. The lack of links make it a much wider motto, and I think it should stay that way, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support! ~ Great quote and message, and that film is a favourite of mine. What about linking the whole phrase to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:About or something similar? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - What purpose would that link serve? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Response To continue the tradition of having links, I guess. It's kind of awkward to have a motto without links after having so many with them.-- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - A motto doesn't need a link, and it's not really a tradition. We have had mottos without links before. They are just rare because a motto needs to have a clear connection to Wikipedia and most mottos need links to establish that. This one does not, thus no links. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply Ah, I didn't know that. I should practice what I preach, and be bold! -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support No links needed as this is so relevant anyway! Smaug123 ( talk) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 7, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1. Inspired by Pjoef. Even if some criticize wikipedia, we have changed the world.

• Neutral - I still think that links are unnecessary for this quote, but if the consensus develops that we need some (which it hasn't yet), this is the less objectionable of the two suggestions. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support if necessary If the original doesn't make it, the links here are better in my opinion. Smaug123 ( talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of the original) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again another quote I made up. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Weak Support - Save it for a really slow news day; it's pretty bland. Also, darkness should not be capitalized. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Bland, but I like the link to WP:FRIENDS. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - Pretty bland and a bit too gushy for my liking. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Nutiketaiel and I dream of horses. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 6, 2009 Secret Saturdays ( talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One I made up. The quote was inspired by one from Walt Disney. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Weak Support - It's a good sentiment. Some links would be nice to make its relevance to Wikipedia more clear, but it is passable the way it is currently written. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (Edit 1 of this motto already approved) Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 per I dream of horses (added links) - I know external links are rarely used, if ever, but how does this look? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Nice. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Well done, good link choices. I like the external link here, especially since the wiki seems to have been pushing that strategy stuff lately. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support! ~ It's ok. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 5, 2009 Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Pjoef. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The link is unnecessary. The original version is better without it. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (one vote and unnecessary link) Smaug123 ( talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that edit wars can only go so far. There's a point when we need to talk to each other. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 16:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not sure that WP:EW is the best link for the first phrase, but as I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, it will suffice. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry but it has been done before in January. Simply south ( talk) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Simply south. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - We should not be repeating mottos. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Is there any way to withdraw my nomination? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined - withdrawn\FUI. Simply south ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A sports one below reminded me of this. Simply south ( talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It's not bad. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support/Comment Not bad, but I would suggest that the links be to 'Featured Article' and 'Be Bold'. Smaug123 ( talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I think it's better the way it is now, Smaug. I think your link idea would seem to devalue Featured Articles. Barnstars are not one of our goals, they are just a way for others to recognize contributions above and beyond. Featured Articles, on the other hand, are one of our goals. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Nice idea. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 03:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support I like the links and the quote. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support! It's simply perfect. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 4, 2009 (per WP:SNOW) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

-- 90.201.164.97 ( talk) 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support So in other words, it takes a while (presumably) to get a list to featured status, but it's worth it. Good message. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Why FL? Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 07:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not? People don't think of featured lists that often.

But "why" is a good question, too, I suppose. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest linking to WP:FC; more neutral that way. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's pretty bland. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with the link to featured lists. Alot of attention is paid to featured articles, but very little to featured lists, which are just as hard to make and equally important. It is nice to draw attention to them once in a while. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 3, 2009 (per very bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope these links work, showing you can get along well if you are not so judgemental. Btw, a past version with diferent links was proposed by me about 4 months ago at Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_19#Live_long_and_prosper. Simply south ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question Why link 'Live long' to 'Don't bite the newbies'? I don't understand. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 02:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think the idea is that, if the newbies stay bite-free, they will stick around (i.e., live long). Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I don't like mottos that people may not understand, but the links greatly aide here. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The first link is fine by me, but there’s something about the second one that doesn’t seem quite right. Would you think linking it to WP: STAR or WP: SERVICE would be better?  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 14:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• I like Nuti's inerpretation. I was just meaning, if you don't attack newcomers and just generally treat people equally, you can go a long way. Simply south ( talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I like Nutiket's interpretation (which is my own, too, of course), but I don't think most people would read it that way. Some Most might think "living long" means being a veteran 'edian, which, in a way, gives "permission" to bite newbies. It might just be me. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 2, 2009 (per very bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Pope (1688–1744), Imitations of Horace, Book II, Epistle I, Line 280 (1733–1738). It's about the Shakespeare's tradition to do not correct his works. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's OK. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• 'Weak support- A bit too metamorphical for my tastes. It took a bit for me to interpret the metaphor, and that was only with the help of the link. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support why wikify? Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Umm, I don't know... I thought to the ink blots on paper. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I thought it was witty - that the sentence itself needed to be wikified! Smaug123 ( talk) 18:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support ~ Sorry, but I had to do it! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/September 1, 2009 (per very bland consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a famous Shakespeare quote to warn vandals. I'm not sure whether it will be good enough, but I guess it's worth a try. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 02:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support ~ I like it.

  Iago:
  "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
  Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
  Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
  'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
  But he that filches from me my good name
  Robs me of that which not enriches him,
  And makes me poor indeed."

  Othello, Act III, scene iii, pp. 155–161.

  I changed the first link to point to Othello. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the statement, taken out of context, is too easily misunderstood. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said, I'm not sure whether this one is good enough;I was just nominating it to see if it works. and now that it doesn't, I'm not surprised. :) Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 02:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support The quote itself made me smile, the links themselves get a good message across. I'm not sure how the links connect to the quote, though. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The message that vandalism leads to being blocked is always welcome…but the links just don’t go with the saying (in my opinion). Vandalism isn’t necessarily “stealing,” as this makes it out to be, and the quote makes it sound like the content that vandals vandalize is garbage. Maybe you should try new links.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 15:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I meant to say that the content the vandals added are rubbish... didn't know I can be perceived that way. But you make sense. I've been thinking of copyright violations for the links instead... Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 12:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What about this one? Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 02:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose First link good, but the Blocked Users link is not stealing trash! Smaug123 ( talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The block is the trash. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • But it's not 'stealing' trash, it's making the vandal trash. Smaug123 ( talk) 11:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess you're right. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Weak oppose This can be interpreted in one of three ways:Copyrighted material is trash (not true), blocked users are trash (not always true, and incivil in any case), or if you steal copyrighted material, you'll get banned (maybe true, but good message to get across). I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I meant the final one. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And the trash means the block. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined all (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Another quote by me. It's inspired by the teachings of Matahama Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Weak Support: Somewhat bland, but ok. Secret Saturdays, please include the time stamp in your sig. It'll be easier to check how long the discussion has been open. ≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 02:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Very bland, but straightforward and carrying a good message. Hang onto it for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I actually like this one a lot. Use any time. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - ok. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ I don't like mottos related to edit warring very much, but it conveys a good message. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved per WP:SNOW. Simply south ( talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wyatt 915 ✍ 15:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I like the idea, but I really don't see how you can get a firm foundation of credibility from vandalism. We need to come up with a better idea for the second link. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ I think he was saying that you can get a firm foundation of credibility despite/in spite of vandalism, it makes sense to me. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - I am sure that that was the intended message, but that's not what gets across to me. It seems to be implying that you use the "bricks" of vandalism to build the "foundation" of credibility, which is contradictory to my way of thinking. We revert vandalism, and replace it with sourced content and brilliant prose; we don't make a house out of it. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Umm... To be honest, brinks reminds me of personal attacks and edit warring here on WikipediA, and of lies, slander, defamation, obstacles,... gossip and complaints, the difficulties of "life/living with others" more generally. What about using WP:FUCK, WP:ATTACK or Ad hominem? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support and suggestion Maybe "bricks" can be linked to some kind of dispute resolution page? Like, we build a house despite (or because of) having disputes? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)  Declined - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Times (1998) Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Wyatt 915 ✍ 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ good phrase and links! – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question - What does this quote come from? I would like to understand the original context before I voice an opinion, since what it is trying to get across is not immediately obvious. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is really a proverb. The whole thing is quoted from some issue of the Times, in 1998, though I don't know which - it's just from the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms. (I expected somebody to ask anyway) Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 02:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that proverb means 'even the lowest people have rights'. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I am familiar with the proverb, I just didn't know where the rest of it came from and I still don't understand the context or what the rest of the quote is trying to say. Oppose for now, unless someone can explain what it is trying to say and its relevance to Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Basically it's to tell people not to bite the newbies because they, too, are humans and make mistakes. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 04:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, that message doesn't get across at all. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I have a compartmentalized thinking style. I don't know how the last two links really relate to each other, or to the first two links. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • At first I thought that it would be nice to link king to Jimbo's userpage, but Nutiketaiel would't approve for sure. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 12:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Am I that predictable?  ;-) Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll never forget that 'strongest possible opposition' at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. :-) Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I like the words, but with the links given, the two sentences don't seem to make sense in relation to each other... Icy // ♫ 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support I think this quote carries a good message. Smaug123 ( talk) 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south ( talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had this quote at the top of my talk page for over a year now (After I saw it on MoP's talk page), and when I saw the request for mottoes of the day, I thought this could be a good one ;). Mifter ( talk) 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - the quote should make sense without the links too - this would just be misconstrued. Smaug123 ( talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I like the sentiment, I'm just worried that it might be misunderstood as encouraging people not to do anything. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agreed with Nutiketaie's statement, some people may take this in the sense that they should just sit around and read things. Not that reading is a bad thing, but we don't want to scare people into avoiding criticism by making every edit incredi-cautiously (made that word up) instead of just being bold. GrooveDog ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ per Nutiketaiel + Suggestion: How about using Wikipedia:Edit war– WP:WAR for "Criticism", Wikipedia:No legal threats– WP:NLT –OR– Wikipedia:No original research– WP:NOR for "saying nothing", Wikipedia:No personal attacks– WP:NPA for "doing nothing", and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles– WP:OWN for "being nothing"? – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per linking "criticism" to something else. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Groovedog. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Although it could be misconstrued, to me it is clearly saying that criticism is something that happens to everyone, except ones who do nothing, and as such we should not let that criticism destroy us, lest we too become "nothing". I disagree with some of the links though, specifically WP:MW, as I do not think that users who have left are suddenly worthless, and I also disagree with the link for criticism, but to be honest I can not think of a better one, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Changing my position from "Weak Support" to "Oppose." The more I look at this motto, the less pleased I am by it and the message it seems to send. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south ( talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lamb (1775–1834), The Gypsy's Malison (1829) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Suggestion linking Wasting to deletion policies. Speedy deletions and prods are also wastes. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 07:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry, this quote is just too... wierd. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: agree with Nuti here, no other way of putting it ^^ Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not all deleted pages are a waste. There are several admins who userfy. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south ( talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Another one I made up. The quote was inspired by one from Leon Troksy or another person with a similar name. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me)

• Oppose - suggests that Wikipedia would be better off if the people who do not edit became vandals. -- UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 10:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per UberScienceNerd's interpretation. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - this seems to say that people have to contribute to Wikipedia or else. Contributing to Wikipedia is by mostly volunteers who do this in their spare time and whilst contributions are encoraged, they are not compulsory. Simply south ( talk) 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - does give the wrong impression, but the idea's good! Smaug123 ( talk) 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Actually, I believe the opposite. There's no way I'll support this quote. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As simply south says, no one has a responsibility to edit constructively, everyone who edits does so as a volunteer. Vandal's are by far worse than editor's who take a short break from editing, or retire, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 11:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that PE teachers, and camp counselors often told me and my fellow teammates and opponents to say if we were ever caught in a moment of bad sportsmanship. We weren't "in it to win it", but just to have fun. Wikipedia is the same way. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but do PE teachers and camp counselors really say that? Don't think I've heard of that. :) Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support/Neutral. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Yeah, they really say that. It apparently is a magical word that makes adrenalin-pumped children immediately forget all their rivalries, sit down in a circle and start singing songs of solidarity. It sounds really stupid when they say it. It's pretty bland here, but it is a good message. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Need I say more? Smaug123 ( talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south ( talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this saying hasn't been used before. The message is pretty simple, as you can see, but important.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, a similar one nearly 3 years ago at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#The keyboard is mightier than the pen and sword!. Simply south ( talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - It's different enough from the one that has been used, in my view. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Nutiketaiel. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support The pen is mightier than the sword, indeed! -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ~ I like it. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 28, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger Babson I wasn't able to find the origin. I was thinking of it saying something like that to be an administrator you have to start somewhere. Monkey Fox Contributes! . 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I'm not sure I like the first link- it implies that becoming an Admin is something that someone should aspire to. Still, it isn't bad. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How about a reference to articles then, instead of editors? Nothing wrong with the current one, I'll support that too. ≈  Chamal  ^talk 13:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What about linking good future to Wikipedia:User access levels? Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ I don't like the first link very much. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps we could aim this quote at wikicats. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• What about replacing the administrator link with the wikipedian link? Or some civility guideline--something everyone should aspire to? -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of edit 2) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 per Kayau.

• Support I like this one. We all need to learn. I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of edit 2) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2 per I dream of horses.

• Support ~ I prefer this one. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Being the one to suggest it, I too prefer this one. I dream of horses ( T) @ 00:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This one would be my preference as well. It gets the message across without glorifying admins. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - doesn't include admins, which is good, IMO. — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L• EM) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 27, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit 3 per Chamal. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (in favour of edit 2) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply south ( talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support It sends a good message. I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support ~ It's a bit "meh". – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It's good. I also took the liberty of arrow-linking it to Benjamin Franklin, since this is his quote.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 14:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't know, i only hearsd it somewhere. Simply south ( talk)
• Strong Support - Excellent linking, excellent motto. Always nice to have more Ben Franklin quotes (but maybe I'm biased as a Philadelphian). Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Great message to get across, but unfortunately, you are also saying that the ones who withdrawn themselves had prepared to fail. Besides, we don't want to embarrass the ones who got unsuccessful RfAs in some motto. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/August 26, 2009 (per consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination reflects edit wars and consensus struggles in Wiki.-- TitanOne ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Generally, we give wikilinks in the motto to get a point across. This, by itself, gets the message "Wikipedia can't be improved" across. I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose/Support (neutralol) ~ I think it should be something like:

  Lead us not into temptation, we already know the way.

  But, I'd suggest one of the following options:

  Lead us not into temptation ( WP:WAR or WP:LAME), we already know the way ( WP:CONS or WP:CIVIL or WP:EP).

  – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I like this. -- TitanOne ( talk) 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose both the original quote and both suggestions. The original has no clear relevance to Wikipedia. The first suggestion glorifies and approves of biting newbies, which is bad. The second suggestion suggests that Consensus is the way to War, which is the opposite of what we want. I can't think of any set of links that would render this quote acceptable. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Nutiketaiel.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Declined (no consensus) – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)