Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review
When placing mottos, please include them in the top of the In Review section instead of the bottom. Thank you.
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)
Edit 1: Changed first link to one suggested by Simply south. Matty4123 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
→We will all laugh at gilded butterflies
Edit 2: Removed first two links. Matty4123 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
From here. Should i add this link as -->? Simply south (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
Vandalism is easy, but contributing positively to Wikipedia is more rewarding. Also, I think I heard this line from the upcomming Harry Potter movie trailer. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support: I think we have heard about the 'choosing' far too often. But it's OK I guess, as long something very similar hasn't been used before. Chamal talk work 11:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support assuming it hasn't been used allready. Nothing wrong with it, i suppose; just a little boring. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others.
Matty4123 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - I like the quote, but it needs links to tie it to Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Yes, please add links! —La Pianista (T•C•S) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support - Good motto, irrelevant link; I will support if the linking is improved. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The link doesn't make much sense. Nice motto otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - link supposed to show people that nothing is impossible in wikipedia. suggestions for links? - Matty4123 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support: If UberScienceNerd's suggestion is used. Chamal talk work 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support with UberScienceNerd's link suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1. Changed links to those suggested Matty4123 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support with these links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - First link is great, but the second one doesn't click with me. Call me weird. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:52, 17 October 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)
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)
--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)
- 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)
OK, did I do a good link this time? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Irrelevant to Wikipedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Assuming that this one has not been done before, I would be OK with it if it had wikipedia related links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps if "Mind what you have learned" was linked to WP:ADOPT and "Save you it can" to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support: If links suggested by Nutiketaiel are used. Please try to use links related to Wikipedia in your mottos. That is, usually something in WP:Wikipedia namespace. No more star wars links!!! :) Chamal talk work 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1. Changed the links to be Wikipedia related instead of Star Wars related. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - That's right, I only support my own edit if this quote hasn't been used previously, per my Infinite Monkey Policy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Ya know, I was going use the exact same links. :D But add a little → at the beginning to maintain the reference, however trite. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hate to go with a Yoda quote, but I found this one catchy.--LAAFansign review 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support: It's okay, but a little trite. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Far too trite. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would only Support if this is changed to, "Be aware of the dark side". -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would only Support if this is changed to, "Be aware of the dark side". -- SRE.K.A
- Conditional support: I agree with SRE.K.A.L.24's proposal. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 00:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support if changed as SRE.K.A.L.24 suggested. It's a bit boring the way it is now, hearing it all the time. Chamal talk work 00:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Weak Support with suggested changes, and ONLY if it has never been used before. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Weak Support per Nutiketaiel. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:56, 17 October 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)
- 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)
- 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)
It sounds like something that has been done before, but a quick search of the Motto of the Day archives yields nothing. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: How about changing the link to m:The future of Wikipedia? —La Pianista (T•C•S) 17:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with La Pianista. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Per La Pianista --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Assuming it truly hasn't been done before. I like the link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support: The link is definitely better than the other version. Chamal talk work 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Nice one! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I created; ergo, I support. :) —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:58, 17 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)
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)
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)
→ 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)
→ 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)
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.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 18:17, 11 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)
→ 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)
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)
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)
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)
- How about now? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, not quite (it kinda made it worse). Sorry. —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Better? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:02, 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)
- 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)
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)
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.
--LAAFansign review 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Seems good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - I like it, but the WP:FA link should only be attached to the word "great," not the word "nothing," IMHO. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Well, it's true. Chamal Talk ± 14:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
--LAAFansign 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)
--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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia. It speeds up. Exciting to touch. Happy is the day when backache goes away.
- Support Talks about Wikipedia's growth into a featured article. I like it. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose--LAAFansign review 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - I guess I like the sentiment and the links, but the quote is really kind of wierd. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support: As Nutiketaiel said, the idea is OK but the motto is weird. Chamal Talk ± 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I've never heard it, and it seems extremely weird. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - would be quite confusing to the MOTD readers. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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--LAAFansign 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)
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)
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)
To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 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)
To be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 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)
To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sorry, but aren't we allowed to reuse mottos? --Cameron* 12:11, 9 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Surprised this hasn't been used before. —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit 2 Other links. —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - If it truly hasn't been used before. Not a big fan, though; too cliché. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the other version has already been approved...with your own vote. :) —La Pianista (T•C•S) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Boy, don't I feel like a dope. I guess that's why it seemed cliché; I HAVE heard it here before. ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I made it shorter--Spittlespat (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - It presents the vandals as a legitimate side, it links to pages that don't reflect the Wikipedia meaning of the terms, and it probably shouldn't be up here in the special nomination section. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Moved appropriately. —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support - I guess it's all right, but it seems just a repetition of the famous black-and-white image (I'm sure everyone's seen it?) —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- What image are you referring to? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This one: (click for larger view). —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Huh. Never seen that image before. I still don't like the quote, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This one: (click for larger view). —La Pianista (T•C•S•R) 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- What image are you referring to? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose People don't have a choice. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with Nutiketaiel. Chamal Talk ± 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Translates to I came, I saw, and I conquered Juthani1 tcs 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: See Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Frequently_used_ideas. Secondly, when it says place this at the top of the section, do not place it at the bottom. Simply south (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Find something more original. I have also taken the liberty of removing the other two repititions of this same motto, as they are exactly the same; I assume they were added by accident. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Or alternatively
- Oppose Link isn't very good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:10, 23 September 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)
→ 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)
→ 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)
Both to be reopened - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 10:01, 22 September 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)
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)
To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Wait! This would make a decent motto with different links:
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)