Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

→ We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

From the famous Winston Churchill speech. I know it's a long one but that's about the smallest I could condense it to. I was wondering what a good link for 'surrender' would be. Joelster (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great! (the length's just fine.) The Chronic 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for length. It's good, but I think it's too long. —ScouterSig 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Being an idolizer of Churchill's speeches, how can I not? Very witty links Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Hey: surrender could be a link to some page on Uncyclopedia. Even the main page would do. flaminglawyer^c 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What if "never surrender" linked to WP:WINF? Joelster (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→ We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

Edit 1. Added WP:WINF as a link to "never surrender". Joelster (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per original. Simply south (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalize once, shame on you; Vandalize twice, I'LL BLOCK YOU

A good play on words, -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, sorry but it sounds like feeding the trolls. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - munch, munch, munch -Pumpmeup 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Its in the FUI.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It is a good play on words and rather clever, but we give up to four warnings before blocking in an effort to assume good faith. The motto completely goes against several policies and guidelines and isn't very welcoming. Sorry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support So catchy and so true. HIYO (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Vandals are usually blocked after 4 edits bad faith edits anyway. ~Iceshark7 14:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support It's not that bad. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. That's BITING. Poor newbies, probably hiding under the bed. Basketball110 _{i'm not yik ginlyùn} 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Duplicate of FYI. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reject per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To whom much is given, much is expected.

Pretty self-explanatory. :-) —Animum _{(a rag man)} 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, we gotta keep 'em in check. ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, Like it, nice wording. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, it's okay. *Cremepuff222* 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support— Yep, lots of responsibility comes with adminship, quite true. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you're worth it

Loreál adverts. I hope this isn't FUI. Simply south 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good one. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good, and not an FUI. Can't recall this one being used before either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, it's ok. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Meh. Joelster (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the cat

~AH1^(TCU) 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, nice one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 12:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support great, and the essay is a nice one I hadn't yet read -Pumpmeup 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure it will have a ton of people clicking the link. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I will never use "LOL," so I'm laughing out loud. Basketball110 _{i'm not yik ginlyùn} 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, if only for the fact that I am experienced in the ways of noses and beans. MixItUp 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I like it! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support— So true, and rather droll, I think. ;) --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To register or not to register, that is the question.

~AH1^(TCU) 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, idea's been used way too much. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 12:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose FUI. •97198 talk 12:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow. That's retarded. flaminglawyer^c 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One editor can make a difference. Join Wikipedia today.

~AH1^(TCU) 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, inspiring, yet simple. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 12:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. —ScouterSig 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support though a signup/intro link would be handy -Pumpmeup 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would create an edit, but I can't find the special create account link. Can someone add an edit that has this? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One editor can make a difference. Join Wikipedia today.

Edit one How 'bout this? --EinsteiNewton 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, clichě to the max. MixItUp 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You say that like I came up with this motto. I give the full credit to AH1, and I happen to love the motto. --EinsteiNewton 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

'Rejected due to consensus on original. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You vandalize, I warn. You vandalize, I warn. You vandalize, I warn. You vandalize...BLOCK!

I just experienced somthing similar to this just 5mins ago.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- Happens to me, too every so often. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit pessimistic. —ScouterSig 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't need everyone to know about our vandal policies, it's just frightening for newcomers -Pumpmeup 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Good point. Pessimistic and frightening, not something to be had in a motto...--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral As this does happen fairly often, it does seem logical to put it in a motto, and it does follow the warning scheme we use... but the opposes have a good point. Not too sure which way to go on this one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, in the words of Pumpmeup...munch, munch, munch. MixItUp 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If a picture is worth a thousand words, an article is worth an thousand edits

It's not the most amusing motto ever, but I think it's okay. What do you people think? Mottoman 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support, a bit dry, but Ok. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good one. Laleena 12:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, because first of all it has a cliche in it, second it's making another cliche, and third, an article can easily get to WP:FA before having been edited one thousand times. Oh, and fourth, I hate cliches. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Nah.. I don't think that sums up article writing that much, although good idea. Phgao 02:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Nah? What does "nah.." mean, support, oppose, comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny910910 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose On FUI list and as above, an article cannot be described the number of edits in its history. •97198 talk 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• FUI. Simply south 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose If a new motto is worth a thousand votes, an FUI is worth a thousand opposes. Sorry, it has been done several times before. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

'Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be a freenoder and an uploader, just don't be a freeloader!

WODUP ^(?) 03:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, humorous. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 06:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Quite amusing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights _{Happy Halloween!} 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• If along these lines, wth is an upnoder? (Support) Simply south 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support and motion to make it soon, while the pledge drive is going on. —ScouterSig 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike.

Edit one, suggestion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, great motto. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hey, "edit one, suggestion" was my idea :P . Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: you just proved the motto. ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support ...But fools never differ! •97198 talk 06:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 00:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock beats scissors. Paper beats rock. Wiki beats paper.

—May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 06:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Ha, good one. •97198 talk 10:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• What beats wiki then? Simply south 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (:))
  • Techinically scissors. The Chronic 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: nothing. :) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Global warming, hurricanes, sea level rise, terrorist attacks, wars, blackouts, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, you name it. ~AH1^(TCU) 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The Chronic 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good one! Thereen 06:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- [falls of chair laughing (I've got to stop doing that)] Well, this one is good (provided the electricity dosen't go out)! --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note (for what it's worth): This motto was used on 26 October 2006 and 9 December 2006. WODUP ^(?) 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawing nomination, bravo WODUP, I salute you. :) I was wondering when someone would get this. More on this on the talk page. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected - withdrew and FUI. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Who, what, when, where and why?

Figured I'd add a random motto :) ( arky ) 15:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, unusual. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I like the idea but it'd be better if all the links matched the words. •97198 talk 06:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Encourages editting of random articles that never get editted, and also gives me the key to find random users, categories, and images that I've been looking for all this time. Might be hard for a few people to understand, though. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support and kudos points for showing me some code I didn't know yet. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha, trust me, when it comes to coding, that doesn't happen very often =P ( arky ) 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, very original. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→ My, what a big encyclopedia you have! Why, all the better to edit you with!

~AH1^(TCU) 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, doesn't make one bit of sense to me, sorry. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 05:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Hate to be pedantic, but grammatically doesn't make sense - who/what is "you"? •97198 talk 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose -- Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it almost sounds like a Russian Reversal. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per above. —ScouterSig 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Little red riding hood phrases aren't cool per se -Pumpmeup 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per FastLizard4. How do you edit me with an encyclopedia? --EinsteiNewton 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• oppose I hate self-advertising. Unadulterated-ly hate it. flaminglawyer^c 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→ A Wikipedia is worth a thousand Britannicas.

~AH1^(TCU) 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: already on FUI list. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 05:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose While quite true, it has been done. Please note if you clicked on that link and spent at least five minutes reading it Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected FUI. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a red link, but what can you do about it?

A link to Help:Starting a new page, to get people to write new pages. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, encouraging, yes… Oppose, in favor of Edit one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Um yeah some editor might actually create the red link page, maybe SALT it, hmmm.. Phgao 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Lovely! Thereen 06:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, SALT the page -- Good, but we don't want anyone creating a page titled "This is a red link." Also encourages people

to get accounts, which I like. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: could you split the change into an Edit one, so it becomes clear who'll support the new version, as now it appears all who supported the old one, now support the change also. I'm not saying I don't, but still. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: No salt is needed. The text This is a red link isn't actually a link. WODUP ^(?) 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, gee. Now it is. WODUP 09:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a red link, but what can you do about it?

• Edit 1: Rm actual link from the red text and added "<span style="color:#CC2200;cursor:pointer">", so no one creates it as commented. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, it's better now. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

'Rejected consensus on original. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a red link, but what can you do about it?

• Edit 2: Why not use the actual red link which is already salted so we don't have to worry about it? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support new(est) edit with pre-made redlink. —ScouterSig 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

'Rejected consensus on original. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a red link, but what can you do about it?

• Edit 3: Use the template {{Red link}} to combine the original link and edit 2. Soxred 93 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

'Rejected consensus on original. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Bringing democracy to knowledge

A reference to what was said on The Colbert Report. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't work on democracy, but it does work on consensus. The Chronic 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, it's good enough. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Though Wikipedia works on consensus, WP:NOT clearly states that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Vaishu2 04:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Bringing democracy to knowledge", as in allowing anybody and everybody to pitch in, and help bring knowledge to people. Democracy doesn't necessarally have to refer to the form of government. The Chronic 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support yeah I get what you are saying but as per Vaishu, I think it is a tad unsuitable. Phgao 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - while consensus-decision making is not pure democracy, it is certainly democratic, in that everyone is allowed to have an equal say in the matter being discussed. I think it's fine, The Hybrid T/C 22:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've changed the link from WP:CON to WP:EDITORS to fit better. Hope that helps. The Chronic 05:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammer time!

I was bored yesterday and wound up listening to MC Hammer. --EinsteiNewton 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, to the point :). —T-borg (T | C) 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Mega support! SWEET! --24.86.122.16 (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Banhammer time! aka support. bibliomaniac15 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• support, but the Hammer should link to WP:MOP. flaminglawyer^c 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammer time!

Edit 1 Per suggestion. --EinsteiNewton ^{any way the wind blows...} 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected consensus on original. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing.
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble!

A tad long, I'll admit, but then again, wikipedia is a very complicated place. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, no kidding, it's long. Besides, I dont think it will fit in the template.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 04:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Sunny910910. --  Boogster  Go!  04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogster (talk • contribs)
  • Note Long ones have been approved. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I can clearly understand, and it's funny....Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 09:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's pretty good, but is way too long. Sorry. :-( Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Great idea! But yes it is a bit long and many would not "get" it. Phgao 01:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus reached. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral -- I like it, but it's kinda long, don't you think? --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral – Good idea, but a bit too long. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - This is a well organized phrase, and I don't see where else this could fit into at the moment. You don't see a long motto everyday, so for this one, I'll give my support. ~Iceshark7 13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I like it but it's way too long. Sorry. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - too long for me; I gave up after the first two lines. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→No cash value, no purchase necessary. Ask your parents before going online.

~AH1^(TCU) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good! --  PNiddy  Go!  14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - gobbledygook - what's `nessecary`? Palmiped 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support, not bad. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Supoort a bit dull. --Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as per Sunny. •97198 talk 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeI don't really like this as this motto specifically adresses kids, although I get what it is implying. Phgao 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected - no consensus on reopening. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From A to Zzz, we have it all

~AH1^(TCU) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, a tad too bland. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, not everything is worthy of inclusion. Some things are too obscure. VoL†ro/\/Force 03:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't have it all, especially original research.. Phgao 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is as easy as pie!

~AH1^(TCU) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, think it's been done before, perhaps try somthing unique.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strenght alone} 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sunny. Phgao 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sunny910910. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, cliched and boring, to be honest. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia. Three million articles and counting. Or trying to.

Edit 1That's acceptable?Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 09:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, sorry, but same problem. We can't know how many we'll have then to make a motto for the occasion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, not enough discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia. Over six million nine hundred six thousand five hundred and ninety-six articles and counting. Or trying to.

Edit 2 Trying to resurrect the motto with a bit of magic :) This will update as more articles are added, through the syntax {{numtext|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}}} ( arky ) 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Try {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}... And I Support it. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reject - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the code to {{numtext|({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}-1)|round=down}} to make way for the new version of {{numtext}} (also subtracted one since it won't be over five million till it's five million and one). JIMp _talk·cont 01:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

→ Vandals, you got some splaining to do... Eeewww!

I never get tired of those I Love Lucy reruns :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: ewww? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I dont get it either.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn I'm more of an I Love Lucy fan than I thought. Whenever Lucy gets into trouble she saws the infamous: "Ewww!" (maybe I'm spelling it wrong, but that's the closest I can come to the sound) Change if you don't get it. Edit: Seems Wikiquote elongates it so I edited it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I still don't see the context, the question imposed seems to be answered with disgust, which creates confusion ( personally, I don't understand the links). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was mostly following how that question of Ricky's is usually responded to (which is usually with that sound). If you feel the motto is salvageable feel free to change the links around.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• OpposePer above (I'm opposing so it doesn't have to be reopened).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, not really sure how to put it any other way. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. Not to offend, but I don't get it. Kaktibhar 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 13:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Addressing vandals is not good. Also vandals are not likely to see it.. Phgao 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- "Eeewww?" I get it, but I don't think other people will. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it stinks, sorry _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying a template one

The above was not the title of the motto. I was thinking...

This motto is being considered for deletion. See Motto of the Day to help reach consensus.

This could probably be tidied (or a better template created or both). Simply south 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It sounds like it could give the wrong message, when I first saw it, I thought that MOTD was being considered for WP:MFD. Besides, it isn't really a motto (see definition). But, good idea though (perhaps reword it).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Well i've changed it into a proper simple template. Simply south 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Agree with Sunny, but it is truly a new, creative idea.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Cool idea, but would work better based around a real prod or afd template. •97198 talk 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. Nice idea, could be confusing though, but would generate interest. Phgao 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No ID, no entry

ive seen this basic rule in schools, government establishments, house subdivisions, etc... †Bloodpack† 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose it sounds like your trying to say "anon IP editors are not allowed".--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • im saying that anon users wont have that much privilege as to those who use log-in names, pls check the links. These quotations are derived phrases that we dont take literally †Bloodpack† 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You might not take it literally, but the folks it's targeted at most certainly do because they don't know better. Obviously a new user would be the audience for this, because anyone who's edited for any amount of time already knows this stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • True, that's why I have provided via link the reason(s) why they should register for a username, the benefits they will get if they have a username. Its sort of a metaphor using the statement above derived from the most common rule in any establishment †Bloodpack† 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Even with the links, the text makes it sound like the opposite of what your trying to say.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as above. •97198 talk 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose – I agree that it sounds like it's saying "anon IP editors are not aloud". Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Phgao 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per the anti-IP concern. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discriminate articles, not editors.

~AH1^(TCU) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support either, their both good.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could be my mistake, but you can't grammatically discriminate something, right? Rather discriminate against something, for example? •97198 talk 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

'Rejected no consensus after reopening. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discriminate articles, not editors.

Edit 1 - a possible alternative. Simply south 22:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support either, their both good.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the wording a bit off. Phgao 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected - no consensus after reopening. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→Read Wikipedia? That's over NINE THOUSAND!

~AH1^(TCU) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support, nice, but meme's a bit obscure, isn't it? (expl. in this section) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I understand it only because I edit Uncyclopedia, too. But it wouldn't make too much sense to anyone who hasn't. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Huh?? Phgao 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. What on earth is it saying? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→Wikipedia. Edit what tastes right.

~AH1^(TCU) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A great note encouraging people to edit articles matching their own interests. ~Iceshark7 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected - no consensus after reopening. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→Wikipedia. Edit what feels right.

Edit 1 Possible alternative?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - While the word "feel" could be used more appropriately, I don't think that statements encouraging people to edit as much as they would like to, because it would partially break some minor policies and conventions, such as WP:DEADLINE or WP:BREAK. ~Iceshark7 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iceshark. Phgao 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do the crime. We will find your evidence.

~AH1^(TCU) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? - Seems weirdly martial, are we the kind of project that has a threat as a motto? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Q
  • Comment. Okay then, so I now made it a little less "martial", as you call it. Is this better? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me rephrase, it's still basically a threat. Here's the motto of the project, "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", before that it was "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", and so on. But a motto of the day that just focuses on vandalism is both weird because it's semi-threatening (like a cop pointing at you and saying "I'm watching you") and glamorizes vandalism. Why would those be traits in a "motto of the day"? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't like ones which adress vandals. Phgao 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me, a partrige in a pear tree!

~AH1^(TCU) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, quite funny! Simply south 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support But why does true love have to be a 'crat? Change it to something else perhaps, editor? Phgao 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jogar-me na área das crianças!

Translation: Play me in the children's area! Because this motto is for "playing" in the sandbox. --  PNiddy  Go!  15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Not many people will understand that if it's on a userpage. Perhaps an english tranlation(version)?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why Portuguese? Matheus Wahl 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm pretty sure the average en.Wikipedian won't speak fluent Portuguese. •97198 talk 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Nope I cant either. Phgao 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Play me in the children's area!

Edit 1 English translation. --  PNiddy  Go!  16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can we re-word that somehow? It sounds a bit... suggestive. Maybe I'm just being a gutter-minded college kid, but still.... (otherwise Support) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't make sense. The fact that it's translated from some other Portuguese phrase doesn't have anything to do with it when this is a standalone motto - it just doesn't make sense. •97198 talk 14:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And, I reiterate Hersfold's comment. ;) •97198 talk 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yeah, what Hersfold said... sounds very wrong... ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, I dont want to even think of what you guys are talking about.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose God no! Phgao 02:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per, well, everyone else ;P _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No. Not the Portuguese one, nor a bad translation either! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't Panic, we're getting there.

Sometimes the project seems frantic, and folks get agitated and frustrated because it seems like nothing's happening. It might be useful to occasionally point at how far we've come as an indicator of progress so we can enjoy the journey ahead of us. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Sounds good.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 02:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ab uno disce omnes

Latin phrase whose literal translation is: from one, learn all. After considering the many links which would be appropriate for the motto, I chose the article on Wikipedia, because it details its history, its success and yes, even its criticisms. I believe the motto is directed not at our users, but at all other encyclopedias. Although no page exists on the latin quote, more information can be found here. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopening. Edit 1 has been approved. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From one, learn all

• Edit 1: English translation - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, better be sure everyone gets it. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like this version better, but it would be better if the wikipedia link was on the "From one" and there was a link on the other part.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice use of latin. Phgao 02:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Go to the naughty corner!

I just had a horrible flashback to an episode of Supernanny ;) –sebi 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Giving time to vandals - not good. Phgao 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If they have no food, let me eat cake!

~AH1^(TCU) 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: not sure I get this one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, what the hell? –sebi 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I get what it's supposed to mean, but the links aren't all that clear. •97198 talk 06:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don't get this one. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I get it, but it is a bit of a stretch from the original quote, and I'm not the biggest fan of the message. It portrays vandals in a sympathetic light. The Hybrid T/C 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lights. MixItUp 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does.

•97198 talk 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Another bland vandalism orientated one. Phgao 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→ Mr. Shake-Spear, Good day?

Well, yes, good day. Sorry for being not active much.K14 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support!! ----  PNiddy  Go!  0 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→ Mr. Shake-Spear, Good day?

Arile link was wrong.K14 11:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is this "arile" (LOL) link wrong too? ;) •97198 talk 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia! The only Encyclopedia that you shouldn't vandalize!

Keeping it a vandalism-free encyclopædia (encyclopedia)! --  PNiddy  Go!  0 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Others shouldn't either. Simply south 13:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Er yeah not all vandalism is bad; some coule be tests and we can welcome those users. Phgao 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen

†Bloodpack† 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great. Congrats! --  PNiddy  Go!  0 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This phrase is legendary! ~Iceshark7 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks! i think its a biblical phrase, forgot what verse though... †Bloodpack† 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Iceshark7. --Sunny910910 ^{{talk|Contributions}} 12:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like the tagline for a movie! •97198 talk 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Could be seen as contradicting WP:NOBIGDEAL Lurker (said · done) 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment although being an admin is no biggie, it doesnt mean becoming an admin is easy †Bloodpack† 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Good point Lurker, I'll Oppose.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm changing to Neutral, per the points metioned by User:Bloodpack and User:Lurker (3rd and last time I'm changing my mind)--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Should not hold admin as an unattainable thing. Phgao 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support whether or not you disagree with the message, its truth is indisputable. Good motto, IMHO. The Hybrid T/C 23:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, sounds fantastic. Even if adminship really just means an extra set of tools, very few are chosen to be responsible enough to handle them. MixItUp 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus (just). Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not your average encyclopedia.

Anything but, really... Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support --Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's cool! --Vaishu2 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sweet one. Phgao 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, pretty good. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→Me fail worthiness? But thats unpossible!

~AH1^(TCU) 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

→Me fail worthiness? That's unpossible!

• Support Great motto! Fixed quote for more similarity to original quote, and changed arrow to Ralph Wiggum. •97198 talk 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- Me doubleplusgoodthink! --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, could be taken the wrong way as adminship bringing 'worthiness'. MixItUp 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Approved (only just) per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you "huh" me! Nah, feel free to!

~AH1^(TCU) 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, good, good. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support --Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Super! Phgao 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, velly nice. MixItUp 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What? My ugly face? Nooooo!!!

~AH1^(TCU) 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - As with other phrases with just a direct link to somewhere else, this would need a reference or otherwise people won't really get it. ~Iceshark7 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Phgao 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Lame. MixItUp 01:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want anyone to know it, don't do it.

•97198 talk 09:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose You can't just write anything on the 'pedia. Phgao 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To eat the fruit you must climb the tree.

--Sunny910910 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejected no consensus after reopened. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To eat the fruit, you must climb the tree.

• Comment,I think RFA would be more suitable for the motto.
• Support Good and motivational. •97198 talk 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hey thats a good idea, I should've thought of that.--Sunny910910 10:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either Version - While RFA is the process through which we get admins, it's not required for the candidate to request their adminship - they could be nominated by another and accept that nom. Contribs are important, as it's how we know we can trust a user. Most of the "against" votes in my RfA were due to insufficient mainspace contribs, so it does matter. Either one's fine. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, more discussion. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, apperently the first version of this motto, was created by me (lol).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yep.. Phgao 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, velly velly nice. MixItUp 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Edit 1 is better. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Wikipedia, its a hell of a town. The pages are up and the vandals are down.

Inspired by New York, New York (On The Town) and today's FA. Simply south 12:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'll Weak Support it, ok, but not awfully interesting. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 12:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose dull.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose While it is interesting, it does not contain any links. Phgao 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no consensus. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. Would be a bit better if it had a few links, though. ~AH1^(TCU) 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• SupportI love it! Needs links though. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved (just) per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Watch a seed turn into a tree.

Just think of what a tree comes from, from that little seed. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support, kinda plain, but still ok. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yeah nice one. Phgao 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved per consensus. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Watch a seed turn into a tree.

Edit 1 Links to Featured articles instead. —ScouterSig 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support better link, great motto -Pumpmeup 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejected in favour of original. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)