Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

You can't just sit there and watch everything happen!

Edit one - added link to WP:BOLD. iMatthew (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, that's right. Simply south (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support (but stronger than the weak support I gave the other one; we'll call this Weak Support+) - It is better with this link instead of none at all, but the link isn't very imaginative... Nutiketaiel (talk)

• Almost-Full Support - per Nutiketaiel. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. It's okay...just not great. The link is still kind of dull. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support Pretty good. QAE 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support — There's nothing wrong with it, per se. "Meh" applies here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Per above comments. Chamal ^talk 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ I fly like paper, get high like planes.

From M.I.A.'s Paper Planes (song). -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Nothing wrong with it, I guess, it just doesn't really pop out at me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral per above. The first half is actually quite good, but the second link killed it... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of another link that can replace the second? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I actually like the second half. There are other ways you can link it, though, like maybe "get high like planes", or "get high like planes"...but I think it's fine the way it is! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Artichoke-boy's first link. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
In
Knowledge
In
People
Easy
Daring
Informational
Art

From an anon's sandbox edit. Any further modifications are greatly welcomed. :) —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A nice idea, but I suggest you make a few changes. The first I could stand for Inventive(?) and the second for Interesting(?), also the K could stand for Knowledgeable and opposed to just Knowledge. Just a few points, feel free to ignore or take them on. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Inventive
Knowledgeable
Interesting
People
Easy
Daring
Informational
Art

Edit 1, per Blooded Edge's concerns. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's OK, I guess. Maybe good for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe Art would be better as Artistic, but I like this either way :). Blooded Edge^☆ 12:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support. It's original...but I just don't get the "Art" reference. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Inventive
Knowledgeable
Interactive
Popular
Easy
Daring
Informative
Academic

Edit 2. Different words. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I like this one better for some reason...maybe it's the "Interactive" and "Academic" references. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Medium Support - It's better than the last version, but I'm still not a huge fan. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All  Reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed. I don't like the motto's style. QAE 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clever and witty!--Spittlespat 23:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Don't fear the reaper.

Based on the song of the same name --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Won't it look like we are inviting people to be bold and create articles of unencyclopedic nature? Chamal ^Talk ± 13:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. Would WP:NPA be more suitable for "reaper", or perhaps just linking the entire motto to WP:BOLD? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 16:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Support the WP:BOLD link. Chamal ^talk _work 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As it is, it implies that we want people to nominate more AfDs. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - With UberScienceNerd's suggestion of linking the entire quote to WP:BOLD. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Don't fear the reaper.

Edit 1. Per UberScienceNerd's and Nutiketaiel's suggestion QAE 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. QAE 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This version is better, as I mentioned above. Chamal ^talk 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoot for the Moon - If you miss, you'll land among the Stars

Assuming it hasn't been used yet. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a bit cliché, but not bad. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea overall, but I'm thinking the quote is "even if you miss", and also the fact is you can't land among stars :P . ~AH1^(TCU) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Nice one. Chamal ^talk 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. Cover. Write. Check.

Look. Cover. Write. Check.

Choice 1

Look. Cover. Write. Check

Choice 2

Look. Cover. Write. Check

Choice 3

3 alternatives listed above. I'm not sure what to add for Cover though. An old phrase for doing work. Simply south (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - How about Look. Cover. Write. Check.? Matty4123 (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Perhaps add it as another alternative. Now i think the trouble is that there are so many possibilities with this one. Btw, i've corrected at least my third option so it shows the action of doing. Simply south (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I like the 2nd one, maybe with WP:V as link for cover. Chamal ^talk 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Like that? Simply south (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really like the motto. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — Nutiketaiel said it best. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well, I don't know if this violates WP:UGH, but it just doesn't sparkle for me. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think WP:UGH is meant specifically to refer to article deletion discussions. I think we're allowed to be a little subjective with MotD. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Too long and not so good.--Spittlespat ALIENS 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? It is only four words. Btw, is everyone opposing to all of the first three choices? Simply south (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm opposing all four choices. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Like La Pianista said, it just doesn't sparkle. QAE 00:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All  Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. Cover. Write. Check.

Choice 4 of Look. Cover. Write. Check. - Matty4123 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - mostly good, but "Check" may be better linked to WP:PR --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done - Matty4123 (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Still don't like it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Like La Pianista said, it just doesn't sparkle. QAE 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose--Spittlespat 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope i'm not going overboard but i still want to know why you think it is too long? Simply south (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I just checked my 6^th Class spelling book, and that's exactly, word for word, written on the cover. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Wikipedia is like a Rubik's Cube. The only way to solve it is by turning one step at a time.

Hope it's good or hope anyone can make a copyedit for this. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's OK, I guess. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Not the best, not the worst... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Okay. It's kind of long and meandering, but good enough to be accepted. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks.

• weak support --88wolfmaster (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right!

--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think it's pretty good, but I think the wikilinks should be different. I'm not sure what that best links would be, I'd have to give it some more thought. Useight (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The link should be something related to Wikipedia. That is, usually something in the Wikipedia namespace. Anyway, I suggest something like "Two wrongs don't make a right". That's the best I can think of right now. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with links by Chamal. Trvsdrlng (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I, too, like the links Chamal provided. Useight (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the links by Chamal. The original isn't very good. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Has something like this been used before? It looks oddly familiar... —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the archives (that is why i found the special xmas nom) to find this and could not. So either it hasn't been archived or it was never done. Simply south (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Three wrongs don't make a right!

My spin. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support- Pretty good, but not the best!--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This one is pretty funny. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks.

Been done before: Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/October_19,_2008: Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October 19, 2008--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Withdrawn by submitter. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - withdrawn. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.

I like this quote a lot but I can't figure out appropriate links for it. any suggestions or is it just a lost cause? --88wolfmaster (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm...I'm trying to think of how to link this without it seeming anti-Wikipedia. What about "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers" as sort of a twist on the quote's original meaning? I'll let you know if I think of anything else. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe: →Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. --88wolfmaster (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I like that one (why didn't I think of that?). My vote would be support if the above links are put in. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support new links and its quite funny. Simply south (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support links Oppose (Changed per below). I'm generally opposed to links that lack a WP prefix. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. “An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.” Ray Kurzweil, The Law of Accelerating Returns, Published on KurzweilAI.net (March 7, 2001) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What an interesting opposition reason! Simply south (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • awe come on I'm a huge geek but even so I see what Picasso meant in this computers can not think (yet anyway) they lack imagination and can only do what they are programmed/told to do. Similarly normal encyclopedias/dictionaries can only give you answers/definitions while wikipedia is a great primary reference point allowing users to gain an overview and in some well written FA extensive knowledge in a specific subject matter BUT go beyond that by providing links, references, near real time updating, etc. In short, a computers are far behind the capabilities of the human brain for a simple lack of imagination just like wikipedia is not just a dictionary and that my defense for this quote. --88wolfmaster (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I can understand what Picasso means, as well - art leaves the imagination open to questions that have no answer (or, even better, give rise to new ones). He, of course, was the one that spawned the puzzling question of whether "art imitates life or life imitates art." Wikipedia does have a highly philosophical undertone to its workings whether we like it or not - the "sum of human knowledge" is simply inspiring to any pensive thinker... However, what probably hasn't yet been noticed about this quote is that this encyclopedia is often reached via computers, hence some could see it as a negative slant on Wikipedia itself. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I don't like the quote, and I don't like the links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Matty4123 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• weak support i've seen a lot of vandalism quotes --88wolfmaster (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I like what it has to say (this motto actually looked Anti-Wikipedia at first glance, though!). Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: It's OK, but then again, it looks like vandals are making Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamal_N (talk • contribs)
• Oppose per the unsigned comment above. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh crap!! That was me. Chamal ^talk 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• weak oppose--88wolfmaster (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - So... too many vandals is bad, but a few is OK? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined perconsensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Only in Wikipedia does Cheating equal Learning

This motto is created mostly for laughs...but it is true! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Nothing wrong with it, per se; it just doesn't pop out at me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Yeah, true enough. Not the catchiest though. Chamal ^talk 15:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Can't say I like this one very much. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→ You don't really want to stay, no
But you don't really want to go, oh.

• From Katy Perry's song "Hot N' Cold". iMatthew (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, oh: Very cute. But change the arrow link to Hot N Cold, to be specific. After that, this'll have my Support. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. iMatthew (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support I've never heard of it, but it seems to be good enough. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I like the sound of it. Chamal ^talk 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Catchy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I like it! QAE 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Only you can give them a chance to shine

An article's potential is very important in Wikipedia! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support i like the links. This would work. However, this may also work as Only you can give them a chance to shine - btw, im not sure what to link to shine here. Simply south (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Follow Simply south's links, but add WP:RFAS to "Shine." —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Only you can give them a chance to shine

Edit 1. Requested links by Simply south and La Pianista. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hah, very clever. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per me. :D —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• I certain i can' support myself. Simply south (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Good enough. Chamal ^talk 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• support --88wolfmaster (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I think that this is a good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This is an excellent sentiment. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Very good! I like this more than the original because Wikipedians themselves aren't linked to in mottoes much QAE 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great idea, but I think the original is good too. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1 Approved. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again

Hopefully not FUI. Simply south (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I like this one, assuming it hasn't been done before. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose WP:FFA implies that you have already succeeded. Also, I don't think "and" is part of the phrase. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}
  • I've found a much more suitable link (shame there was no Wikipedia page). Also, i am certain the "and" is in the phrase. Simply south (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Another good one. Chamal ^talk 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→Great works are performed, not by strength, but by perseverance.

Matty4123 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support A classic- what can you say? Alex Jackl (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent quote, and good link selection. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Excellent motto. `–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Simple, precise, to-the-point, a good message...how can I say no? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone clever, please come up with something for the "strength" link. Then, it will have my strong support. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

*Comment what about, Great works are performed, not by strength, but by perseverance. Matty4123 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Matty4123's links. Vandalism shouldn't be seen as a form of strength. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 14:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Link Suggestion - How about linking "Strength" to WP:EDITCOUNT, implying that it is not the quantity of the edits that matters, but the quality? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

→Great works are performed, not by strength, but by perseverance.

Edit 1 per Nutiketaiel's ingenious link. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Strongest Support in the History of Mankind - How could I give anything else? She called me "ingenious."  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Stronger Support than my "Support" above. Even better than the first due to the added link. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are good and recieve approved but as they are almost the same only one version can be used so edit 1 Approved. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Matty4123 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support ANother classic - a sure bet. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - But did he actually say that for certain? I heard that the line was just made up for the movie... well, no matter, excellent motto anyway. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Links are interesting, the motto is clever, it's not a Star Wars or Simpsons quote; support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. One of my favorite quotes of all time...and a great MOTD. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support - I love Ghandi. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support! GREAT QUOTE!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

→We're all looking for that special someone.

Quote from Grand Theft Auto IV - Matty4123 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - funnyish. Simply south (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose DOn't really see the value... Alex Jackl (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK, I guess. Maybe on a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Per above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weakish Support. Good for a chuckle. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter where you wander, however far you roam, the footprints on the path you take will lead you home

Matty4123 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Approve Wher eis this form? Is this like the Bukaroo Bonzai quote: "Wherever you go, there you are!" That is a little more peppy and interesting in my opinion... Alex Jackl (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - AJack1 is right, it does sound like a cumbersome paraphrasing of another quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems fine to me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Ajackl and Nutik. Needs spice. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is important to know all the rules so that you can break them.

→ We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now

→ ...So whether it's creating an article, or making a minor edit, it just has to work.

This is a takeoff of a Duracell battery commercial slogan that I've always liked. It was only a matter of time before I turned it into a Wikipedia MOTD! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - Bong, Boong, Bing! (the Duracell chime) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yay! ~AH1^(TCU) 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Fairly clever. I like it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support:Clever and simple. An excellent motto. Chamal ^talk 12:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

→ I get by with a little help from my friends

Not very good, but I'm trying to get as many Beatles songs in here as possible. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - It's okay, I suppose, but it lacks a certain "pizazz." I can't specify what kind of pizazz, though. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I like the reference to the Help Desk; it's good to remind people that its there. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Different, and agree with Nutiketaiel too. Chamal ^talk 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As per Nutiketaiel. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

→ You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.

And so with all these Beatles references, this John Lennon song is stuck in my head. Any thoughts on better links are appreciated. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Auto-support all Beatle-related mottos. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Looks very good to me. I like the links as they are, but if you want to change them, perhapc changing the "dreamer" link to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_future_of_Wikipedia. (I don't know how to make an external link look right) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

→ You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.

Edit 1 - Changed per Nutiketaiel. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I prefer this one. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. It's always good to have mottos that remind us of the future of Wikipedia, and this does it very well. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I'm a helper! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: as per the above comments. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Think big thoughts, but relish small pleasures.

--LAAFan^sign _review 17:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong support - This gnome is flattered. :D —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Nice. Both FAs and Gnomes are useful to Wikipedia. Chamal ^talk _work 04:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I like the Gnome reference! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Good quotes, and I like reminding people of the existance of wiki-fauna. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.

--LAAFan^sign _review 17:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Funny, and kind of true as well ;) Chamal ^talk _work 04:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps change the slightly-overused WP:FA to WP:BARN? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. LOL. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, pending the change of WP:FA to WP:BARN. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Strong Support pending the change of WP:FA to WP:BARN. I also recommend linking "They" to WP:KC or WP:ADMIN or Wikimedia Foundation, but that's just a suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.

Edit 1, per Julian, Nutik, and I. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus above. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

→We will all laugh at gilded butterflies

Don't know if its been used before or if the links are any good. Might as well have some Shakespeare on MOTD - Matty4123 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for a few reasons. First, it implies that abosolutely anyone can ban vandals from the links, which can only be done by admins. Secondly, banning vandals is only a last resort, if they have been particularly disruptive, especially after many blocks.

Another note is that the quote does not need to be capitalised. Can you also give which play this came from? Simply south (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Well it does state that "The Wikipedia community can decide, by Consensus, to impose a ban" albeit a last resort. But anyway, it's not supposed to imply that users can ban vandals, just that they will eventually get banned if they continue to vandalise pages. What if the first link was removed? P.S. The quote came from King Lear. Matty4123 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for that on where.

I think it is especially the "we will alll" part that emphasises the implication. Just my opinion. I think a better link, if this is used for the first part, i.e. we will all, should possibly link to WP:CONSENSUS but then again it is stll uncertain. Simply south (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - The links don;t make a whole lot of sense to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Any ideas on how to make it better? What if the first 1 or 2 links are removed? Matty4123 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

→We will all laugh at gilded butterflies

Edit 1: Changed first link to one suggested by Simply south. Matty4123 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I like the sound of it, but it'd be better if it was related to something else. Something other than vandals, I mean. Chamal ^talk _work 11:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

→We will all laugh at gilded butterflies

Edit 2: Removed first two links. Matty4123 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support I can't decide if it's still insulting vandals... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The quote makes no sense at all related to Vandalism. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All  Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Got your number

I hope this link is okay and the motto isn't bland. This is off a call centre advert. Simply south (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I like it. Its simple and it works well. Matty4123 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral - OK, but really bland. If this is a pop culture reference, I've got no idea what it is; hence, many people may not get it. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's OK, I guess. Maybe on a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've added the link where it is from. Simply south (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Well, I guess it works. Chamal ^talk _work 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I've NEVER heard this slogan before...but I guess it could work. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Never heard of this slogan. The motto isn't particularly bad, but I suspect most editors won't know what we're talking about. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just figured it was about to be followed by "867-5309." I thought that was the reference.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Look to the master
Follow the master
Walk with the master
Be the master

Saw it on a web site sometime ago, not exactly sure what it was though. I'm not exactly happy with the links (particularly the last one), but I can't think of better ones either. If you guys like the motto, please feel free to improve it. Chamal ^talk _work 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I like it, it's pretty good. As for the last link, I would suggest changing it to either WP:BARN or Wikipedia:Request for Adminship. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support It's ok, I suppose. The second and forth links don't make a lot of sense, though. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  How about Wikipedia:Article development as the 2nd link? As for the 4th link, I think Wikipedia:Request for Adminship will do, as suggested by Nutiketaiel. If you have a better idea, please don't be shy ;) or just be bold, go ahead and add it. Chamal ^talk _work 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would support Wikipedia:Article development as the second link if it is necessary to change it, but I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia:Your First Article. It makes good sense, linking that to "Follow the Master." After your training is complete, you would naturally go on to make an article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support if second link were changed to WP:Article development. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Look to the master
Follow the master
Walk with the master
Be the master

Edit 1: Changed as suggested. Chamal ^talk _work 11:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I like its preciseness. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved edit 1. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking Ahead

or if you prefer, Danger! Thinking Ahead! Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It's not connected to Wikipedia in any way. Put in some good links, and it may be OK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No links, and irrelevant to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support: I understand what the other commenters mean, but disagree that it is completely irrelevant. This sort of motto can deliver a message without links. It is slightly confusing, though: Is it referring to caution signs on roads, or "thinking ahead" as in considering the future? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Suppot if and only if links are provided. How about "Thinking Ahead"? iMatthew (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Those links would have my Weak Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• If iMatthew's links are put in, my vote is Support for this motto. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support with links. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking Ahead

Edit 1 per iMatthew. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. I like its reference to the future of Wikipedia: what we should all think about when contributing. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved edit 1 per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

→ I think I'd better leave right now, before i fall any deeper

Simply south (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - We should not be encouraging people to leave. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, maybe i'll withdraw straight away. Simply south (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected Matty4123 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait! This would make a decent motto with different links:

→ I think I'd better leave right now, before I fall any deeper

How is this? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Better than mine. Support. Simply south (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I don't really like it, it just doesn't do it for me. iMatthew (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - It's all right, but it doesn't really "reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia." —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus (edit 1). Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose We encourage more activity, not Wikibreaks! :-)–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Indeed. Wikibreaks are for the weak! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Once is naught, twice is one too many, thrice is a habit.

Should proably be about four or five...Found on wikiqoute in the Swedish Proverbs Page, slightly edited because of faulty translation Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Like the quote but should change Thrice into whatever four or five is. Is four Quadice or Quadrice? Just wondering. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There isn't anything for four five etc etc, you simply say 'four times' 'five times'... Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK. Not great. Maybe on a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I like the message, but do you think you could change the last link to fit what it links to better? Maybe something like "Thrice is forbidden."? But if you don't want to, that's fine... I'm still voting "Support". Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - it's fine. iMatthew (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matty4123 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support It's usually 4 warnings that gets a block, but it's fine, I suppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• weak support --88wolfmaster (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 7, 2008 per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

→ Help me if you can, I'm feeling down,
And I do appreciate you being round...

The Beatles are amazing, and this speaks directly to a user - asking them to adopt new users. It would also work with WP:HD or WP:NCHP instead of WP:ADOPT, but I'll leave that up to you experts. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like it. BTW, "experts"? Look who's talking :D Chamal ^talk _work 12:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Encouraging. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Never heard of it, but it works well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sweet. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. Reminders of WP:ADOPT and WP:STAR are always good. I think of these mottos as being borderline PSAs; we should try to remind people of less well known or used, but still important, parts of the Wiki. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 6, 2008 per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

→ And now for something completely different...

A motto about the random article link in Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am really surprised this has not been done before and is great with that link. Strong support. Simply south (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Great idea. Nice and simple but it does the job. Matty4123 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: "Excellent" is the only way I can put it. Chamal ^talk _work 11:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - "Fantastic" is the only way I can put it ("excellent" was allready taken). Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Brilliance, plain and simple. spider1224 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Encourages editing. Fantastique! —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per self. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 5, 2008 per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to remain silent, but there’s still so much more to say!

Here's one about the right to vanish in (you guessed it!) Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support: It works I guess. But RTV is a 'right' that a user has, and this looks to me as if opposing that. I mean, like holding them back when they want to leave. Chamal ^talk _work 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I really like this one. People have the right to vanish, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that we WANT people to vanish, and there IS so much more to say. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Although people may leave if they want to, we generally want them to stick around. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well done. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 4, 2008 per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Try not. Do, or do not, there is no try.

• Strong Oppose - Get something more original. Additionally, even if this one hasn't actually been used before (which I find hard to believe), there is no reference to Wikipedia. At least change the links. Also, try to use the appropriate format. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Aaaargh! Another irrelevant link. If this hasn;t been used before, please add link(s) related to Wikipedia. BTW, who submitted this? Chamal ^talk _work 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Please, let's lay off the Star Wars, for a while, eh? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus and no wikipedia related links. Matty4123 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

→The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.

--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very clever. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The links are great. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I always love a smart motto. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Excellent motto, smart links. We should definitely use this. Chamal ^talk _work 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. A rarely intelligent motto with great links! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: as per the above comments. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/December 3, 2008 per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

→ And I just can't break myself no way
But I don't want to escape
I just can't stop.

From Ne-Yo's song, "Closer". iMatthew (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The links are clever. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clever motto. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Good motto and cleverly linked. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The layout's kind of confusing, but I do like the links. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

After a quote from H. P. Baxxter in one of his songs with the German techno-band Scooter (of all people). Also sometimes attributed to John Cassis.

It represents the idea of why people should contribute to Wikipedia: not for personal fame and glory without caring for the quality, but for everyone and keeping quality as your main objective.

PLEASE don't change ANYTHING to this. It's perfect. And it's mine. I don't want anyone to contribute. _{Just kidding.. =P Maybe there are some essays that are better to link to?}

BlackCat (Speak!) 11:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe you could re-direct Important to WP:ADMIN? And be nice to WP:wikipedians? Many people think that being an admin is extreemley important and etc etc, I'm not suggesting it isn't, but it is more important to be a productive member of our community. Whether you are an admin or not. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you when it comes to the first link. Many users strive to be an admin because they feel those users are per definition better. About the second suggestion, I'm not sure, since among Wikipedians are also the vandals and the anti-productive. Isn't there some essay on how normal users can be just as productive as admins or anyone else? BlackCat (Speak!) 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I really like this quote, as is. I do not support changing either link. I think they are fine the way they are. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I link the quote, and it fits well into a Wikipedia-related lesson. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support This motto gives good advice and the links work. Simply south (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's good as is, but how about with the first link to WP:ADMIN? ~AH1^(TCU) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I like it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

→ What's wrong with me? Why do I feel like this? I'm going crazy now.

From Rihanna's Disturbia. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This one is pretty funny, and the links make sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we trying to encourage sending an article to AFD just because it's a stub? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Juliancolton. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose in its present form per Juliancolton's concern. Would replacing the links with WP:NN or WP:PN for the first part, and WP:SPEEDY for the last part, be preferable? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support with U.S.N's links. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can

I suppose someone has already put this in. Politics aside, I like it as a Wiki-motto too. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unclear relevance to Wikipedia. Try adding links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: There was something similar, albeit Bob-the-Builder-based, in July 2007: "Can you edit? Yes you can!" --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Again, just like your motto above, adding links is very helpful in making a good motto. Maybe try something like "Yes We Can"... or "Yes We Can", to make it more relevant to Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support with Artichoke-Boy's first link: Yes We Can. Also, there should probably be punctuation. Something like Yes, We Can! perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trvsdrlng (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak support even with Artichoke-Boy's link. It just sounds really, really bland. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Infinitesimally Small Teeny Tiny Microscopic Practically Unnoticable Because It's Smaller Than A Quark Support of Artichoke-Boy's first link. The connection to Wikipedia makes it barely palatable, but the quote itself is just so... well, bland, as La Pianista said. I can't muster up anything more that sub-sub-atomic support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Yeah, late night out, so wet, it's so tight.

I felt like putting a lyric out. The lyric is from T.I.'s Whatever You Like. If this is too sexually explict, automatically take this off. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Aha oppose - too inappropriate for MOTD. iMatthew (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

changed word to out. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Wikipedia is not censored. If it is a decent motto with decent links (which I think it is), we should not refrain from running it just because some people think it might be offensive. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored. However, we must have some common sense. It's not terribly inappropriate, but I still don't like the idea if putting this on people's userpages. Aside from that, the links make very little sense to me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Julian. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Julian.Alex Jackl (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Permanent markers almost never makes a permanent marking.

Don't even ask me how I got this. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't really get the quote, and the first link doesn't make much sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• OpposeWeak Support (changed per edits) - Wikipedia is anything but permanent. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh yeah, that's what I'm saying. Wikipedia never makes a permanent edit. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true (just took a second look). But still, if you think of it as a real-life situation (Believe me, I once dropped a Sharpie on my brand-new, perfectly-fitted tee - not nice), it doesn't really apply. I kind of get the message now, but the links still don't click for me. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Better? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not quite (it kinda made it worse). Sorry. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How about now? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A tad better, but I'm still leaning on neutral. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really get it. Somewhat bland, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: I guess it works. But then, even a good edit is not permanent in Wikipedia. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't just sit there and watch everything happen!

I have no idea where this came from. But it sounds cool. Omgomgomg888 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I see how it relates to Wikipedia, but some links to make it more clear would improve the motto, I think. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Nutiketaiel...add some links! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women players

Shakespeare again...this time it hopefully hasn't been used! ;) Best, --Cameron* 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Are you planning this for any particular date? The Special Nominations section is for mottos that are oriented for a specific date, otherwise they should go in In Review. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold when it comes to me, I'm frightfully muddle headed. ;) --Cameron* 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's not bad. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This isn't too bad, will probably boost a few self-esteems if given the go-ahead :). Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 21:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: To be accurate, shouldn't it be "all the men and women merely players"? —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - doesn't really do much for me. iMatthew (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

→ A few Cobras in your home will soon clear it of Rats and Mice. Of course, you will still have the Cobras.

I got this looking through some of the past Wikiquote quotes of the day. Hopefully it is not too long. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I like it. Clever and funny. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Clever. Nicely linked too. Chamal ^Talk ± 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Clever indeed, but a troll can hardly rid you of vandalism and spam, but rather increases it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Juliancolton. iMatthew (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

~AH1^(TCU) 01:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Change the first link to WP:EDIT, and that's not the exact wording IIRC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support if the first link is changed as suggested above by Juliancolton and if the quote itself is corrected. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The source of this quote is actually unknown, according to Wikiquote's entry on Laozi (who I thought originally said it). I did fix the wording, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - the links are not good. iMatthew (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not fail through loosing, you fail through giving up.

This quote has been slightly changed, as I cannot remember the exact words painted on the wall of my school's football changing rooms. But still, the meaning is there. I thought I would make it clear to hopefulls out there, that going down in a RfA does not necessarily mean the end of the world. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how dim it is. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Shouldn't it be losing instead of loosing? —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - He got it off the wall of a football locker room; did you expect the spelling to be accurate? I support pending the spelling correction. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: But the link makes it look like RFA is losing (I mean RFA=losing). Can it be given any other way? Chamal ^Talk ± 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of Edit 2. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not fail through losing, you fail through giving up.

Fixed the spelling mistake that was bugging everyone. Please feel free to reach a concensus now :). Chamal, I wasn't saying that anyone trying to RfA themselves will fail. I was just targetting those who have already failed, and retire or whatever as a result. Excessive and un-necessary drama in my opinion. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - per edit two. iMatthew (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 2. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not fail through losing, you fail through giving up

Edit 2. iMatthew (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I was just wishing there was a link to that. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I like it! One of my mottos... Alex Jackl (talk)
• Strong Support - Truly excellent links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved Edit 2 per consensus (just). Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In some cases…less is more!

A quote about redirects in Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Nothing wrong with it per se, but it's not very interesting... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It doesn't say much, but it might be passable ona slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's nothing special, no offense. iMatthew (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Not terrible but not great! Alex Jackl (talk)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To be or not to be, that is the question

Source: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, although it's already been used. Does that matter? I think it's quite a good one anyway. Cameron* 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Huh? Mottos are supposed to have some relevancy to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the links...it's my first time ;). --Cameron* 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Weak support That's ok, it looks good now. I usually don't like to have repeat mottos, but I'll support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Used already. I'm just following the rules. If it wasn't used, I would've have it a weak support. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but aren't we allowed to reuse mottos? --Cameron* 12:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hard and fast rule, but usually old ones are not used again unless there is a special reason. Chamal ^Talk ± 12:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

De facto director's note: Historically, mottos have not been reused. There have been five recent exceptions: the mottos for August 26-30 2008 were "re-runs" from several days in June 2006, because there wasn't enough participation here then to justify using any of these mottos. Now that activity is back up (thank you all!!) I would encourage the use of new, original mottos whenever possible. However, if editors are willing to invoke WP:IAR in the event they particularly like a given motto, that is perfectly acceptable and it will be scheduled if there is a sufficient consensus after 14 days. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks director. ;) I'll be more inventive next time. --Cameron* 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support WP:IAR! I'm sure no one will notice :D •xytram•tkcsgy 11:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support The motto is good. Not really happy about repeating though, since we are not currently short of nominations or anything like that Chamal ^Talk ± 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Nothing wrong with the motto itself, but I really don't think we should be repeating them. Not for another few years, at least. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per this. iMatthew (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• iOppose (I suppose everyone can guess per whom). —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matty4123 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - FUI. Simply south (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per FUI 86.165.61.2 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch your thoughts, for they become your words.
Watch your words, for they become your actions.
Watch your actions, for they become your habits.
Watch your habits, for they become your character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.

This is a favorite quote of mine, that I think can be very well used to illustrate the benefits of following certain policies and the disadvantages of ignoring them. Unfortunately, I've gotten myself stuck and I can't think of links for the remaining lines. Help! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for one line. What do you think of Watch your habits, for they become your character? Simply south (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How about Watch your habits, for they become your character? Also, the last line "Watch your character, for is becomes your destiny." should be "Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny." —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with the suggested links by Simply South. I really like this quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support It's a good motto, but don't you think it's a little too long?--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 15:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: But we need to work on it before we put it up. I'm out of ideas right now, though :) As for the length, I don't think that will be a problem. If we can do template mottos, then we can definitely manage long mottos. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added the links suggested by Simply South (thanks!), fixed "is" to "it", and added WP:FA as the link for "character/destiny". Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support with the links from Simply South. Excellent ending as well - I wondered what you'd put for destiny, but it's an excellent ending. It doesn't matter if it's a bit long - definitely one of my favourite mottos so far. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT. A great motto. It works really well with all the transitioning links, and I love the "character" to "destiny" ending! Maybe it's a little long, but it still works. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 29, 2008 per consensus. Matty4123 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's raining, it's pouring. The old man is snoring.

Has this been used yet? ~AH1^(TCU) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Good, good, and then a horrible one. Doesn't have consistency. I recommend you change some links. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support--LAAFan^sign _review 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose:Nah... I don't get what you mean. La Alquimista 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The links are non-sensical. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: The rest are OK I guess, but I don't understand why 'it's raining' is linked to Wikipedia:What is an article? Chamal ^Talk ± 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - wha? iMatthew (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actions are louder than words

A parent's philosophy. H2H (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I thought the saying was "Actions speak louder than words"? •xytram•tkcsgy 10:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think if I used "speak", it will be kinda' wrong; [H2H] (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - The current links seem to imply that it is better to rollback than other forms of reverting, which is not the case when the previous change was not obvious vandalism. What the motto makes me think of is the {{sofixit}} template. I suggest changing it to: "Actions speak louder than words." --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. In principle, there isn't actually much difference between rollback or undo. To be honest, it would be better to switch the two links around in your motto, as undo actually allows you to leave a comment. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words

Changed rom the original. [H2H] (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I don't really like the links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ...Rollback is undoing. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: It looks a bit like saying "always use rollback" for even good faith edits. Chamal ^Talk ± 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Both to be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

→ I know this crush ain’t going away.

From David Archuleta's new song, Crush. iMatthew (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Cute. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK, I suppose, though I don't understand what "Crush" means in this context. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I agree with above, you would have to know the song to understand it fully, but it seems fine. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Chamal ^Talk ± 14:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's a nice and innocent motto...but maybe if you changed the arrow-link to "Crush (David Archuleta song)" from just David Archuleta it would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artichoke-Boy (talk • contribs) 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 28, 2008 per consensus. Matty4123 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

→Recycling: Are you doing your bit?

Two causes I feel quite strongly about. BeL1EveR (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The links are very appropriate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I bet this would spur on a few users into action. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I like it! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - and the links go ding-ding-ding! :D —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 27, 2008 per consensus. Matty4123 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

→ I am a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don’t want you tonight!

From Pink's new song, So What? iMatthew (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Fantastique, very nice. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very humerous. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great idea. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I'm seeing a lot of cool mottos tonight ;) Chamal ^Talk ± 14:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Catchy and funny! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 26, 2008 per consensus. Matty4123 (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Up, up and away!

Simply south (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have this? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Just found a previous version (approved) from June 2007 but it didn't quite have these links so it is slightly different, and i didn't realise. Simply south (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - We should not be reusing quotes until one of them is reproduced by a room full of monkeys. Nutiketaiel (talk)
• Strong oppose - no re-using - we need to be a more creative project. iMatthew (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does kill brain cells, but only the weak ones.

--LAAFan^sign _review 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't get it, sorry! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It's funny, and makes good sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support (lol'd) - pending grammar fixing "does kills" to "does kill." —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support That's funny, true and even reflects my view on vandals! BlackCat (Speak!) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I like the idea. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Ha Ha Ha! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Bwahaha!!! - Support! Xclamation point 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved for Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 25, 2008 per consensus Matty4123 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Edit fresh

Subway slogan, but changed eat to edit. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 07:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Boring. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by boring. I think it's great. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as clever, interesting, or inspirational. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Okay, I guess. BTW, the arrow goes to a disambig. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the disambiguation. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Very boring. It's not even ripping off a good advertising slogan. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - and a yawn. iMatthew (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Help improve the good, or help remove the bad…either way, you’re helping!

Something that I just came up with about how you can help in Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - The word "help" at the beginning makes it a bit redundant, but other than that, it is a fine motto. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 23:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and before "remove the bad". I would fully support as: "Improve the good or remove the bad... either way, you're helping!" --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I support it as is, but if the only way to reach consensus is to remove the first two "help"s, then I'll support that, too. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support with the change to "Improve the good, or help remove the bad, either way, you're helping!" iMatthew (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sure Matt means "remove the bad." Just clarifying. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hahaha, yeah. I fixed it - thanks La Pianista. iMatthew (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved version Improve the good or help remove the bad... either way, you're helping! per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Something tells me I'm into something good

Simply south (talk)

Or alternatively

• Oppose Link isn't very good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in favour of edit 1. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Something tells me I'm into something good

Simply south (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Bland, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - OK, it lacks zip, but it's a good sentiment, and I love things that remind people about Barnstars. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support.Good enough! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak weak support per Juliancolton. iMatthew (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus (just). Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

→ In America, through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from.

--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can't say this one really jumps out at me. The links aren't that great, either. Nutiketaiel (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It's rather contradictory, and we have editors from all over the world, not just the US. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. Users are from all over the world and will not identify themselves with the motto.--Shahab (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG SUPPORT Not being american is irrelevant - I'm english and i related to it. Its not like so-called "freedom of choice" is unique to america. great motto and makes a lot of sense with the links - works really well. is it a quote ? where from ? Machete97 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • comment yeah its a quote by Peter Ustinov its linked above.--88wolfmaster (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from.

Removed the America part. --88wolfmaster (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I still don't like it. It never bothered me that it referenced America; I just didn't like the links and I didn;t like the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I suppose it is better like this - still a great motto thought and the links are very relevant Machete97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this whole quote doesn't say the things good about Wikipedia as of the last part of the quote. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No offense, but nothing really great here. iMatthew (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Both to be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - No consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Justice does not come from the outside. It comes from inner peace.

--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It makes it sound like only administrators can bring good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I like the quote, but not the links. If you can find some more appropriate ones... Nutiketaiel (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I agree with Juliancolton's concern, perhaps if it linked to AIV instead of admin? Stardust8212 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Justice does not come from the outside. It comes from inner peace.

 Done Switched link to AVI as per Stardust8212. --88wolfmaster (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support: I suppose it works, but it doesn't really jump out at me :) Chamal ^Talk ± 12:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks better this way. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - it doesn't say much for me. iMatthew (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Few Mistakes Fix Themselves

Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. What about if you changed it to "Few Mistakes Fix Themselves", or something like that, so it'll be more related to Wikipedia? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the link suggested by Artichoke Boy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support if the link is added. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support with link added - Matty4123 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved Per consensus.--LAAFan^sign _review 16:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)