Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

December 25

The first noel
The angels did say
Was to certain good shepherds
In fields where they lay.

Merry Christmas, Wikipedians, from the team at MOTD!

My proposed Christmas motto (inspired by the Christmas motto from 2006), which is based on The First Noel. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In review

Those who make fun of us are just jealous of our success

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Corrected (I'm surprised I didn't notice any of these grammatical errors earlier). ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - 'Tis nice and true. Hersfold (talk/work) 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, although I daresay that it would be more relevant towards the Encyclopaedia Britannica. bibliomaniac15 04:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Uncyclopedia is the one satirizing Wikipedia, not Britannica. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. No reason needed. This is just good. --Tewy 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even the highest tower starts with just one brick.

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: I've also taken the liberty of removing the box-and-arrow in the hyperlink. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I've also taken the liberty of adding a period. :P *Cremepuff222* 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - Would it be better to link to the current version of the page, which explains why UuU is so important? The link had me confused for a minute or two, and made me think someone had vandalized this page. Hersfold (talk/work) 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer: No, it should be kept as is. This is to show how vastly Wikipedia has grown since the 6-word article UuU. If the article was linked as the current version, it would lose all historical interest. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's fine. Support either way, sorry, forgot to mention earlier. Hersfold (talk/work) 03:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I am a little slower than most, so I guess that's why it took me two days to realize it was the first edit thing. Wow, I am Dee-dee-dee! Chrishyman 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Look Below.Kfc1864 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A journey around the world starts with courage and one step

Variation on the one above.Kfc1864 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per the original nomination's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Edit 1 - I think this phrasing is more common. It does remove the "be bold" link, but I think the link for single step is more apt. Hersfold (talk/work) 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Nice! But... This is a seperate one form the ne that says -Even the highest tower starts with just brick-, right? ♠Tom@sBat 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per the original nomination's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I already know the situation, so just limit yourself to telling me what´s new

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I already know the situation, so just limit yourself to telling me what´s new

Edit one: Changed links. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support this version, the first's links don't make sense, and the second one's too boring. *Cremepuff222* 20:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good links. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Cremepuff's reasoning Hersfold (talk/work) 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What's new?

Edit 2: The shortened version of the above. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To edit, or not to edit? That is the question.

--Random Say it here! 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) try this one on for size

  • Sorry. This has been done numerous times before. Simply south 21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Be Italic! Be a Wikipedian!

Just came up with it. Uuh, implies we have a sence of humor? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: Even if I don't really get the 2nd link. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: italic style, like this. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, I mean how does it relate to Wikipedia in the manner of the 1st link? ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: well, it doesn't, it's for general flow, you know, bold, italic... —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - It's good. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. The italic link makes humor of the bold link, which I like. --Tewy 17:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good one! Good humor combined with a seriouse editing link. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

E Pluribus Wikipedia (Out of many, Wikipedia)

--Random Say it here! 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak support - Kinda bland-ish, but does a good job of reflecting the community. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

→ E pluribus unum

Edit 1. Changed link to better fit the English translation (Out of many, one). ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, I prefer this version. *Cremepuff222* 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome! Chrishyman 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

→ E pluribus unum

Edit 2. Went back to original phrasing, but with different links. --Tewy 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. --Tewy 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong(er) Support. I like this version more ;) Chrishyman 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and question: Do you still support my version? I like the links that you've incorporated into this motto, however. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: This is the most popular version. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you vandal, we'll call it a draw. But come back and I'll revert your bloody edit off!

Based, of course, on Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In reference to the never-ending fight against vandals on Wikipedia and our determination to "revert their bloody edits off". Hersfold (talk/work) 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: Even if you're supposed to always beat the vandals. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support this version, just because I like this one better. *Cremepuff222* 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This version's simpler. And besides, vandals don't have to "come back" in the form of a sock puppet. --Tewy 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support this version. I love MPATHG. And I dislike the WP:SOCK link per Tewy Chrishyman 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you vandal, we'll call it a draw. But come back and I'll revert your bloody edit off!

Edit 1: Added link to WP:SOCK, seems appropriate for "coming back". Hersfold (talk/work) 03:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per the original motto's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Peace be with you.

Self explanatory. Simply south 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Changed the linking a tad. Goes to the same place, but I made it so you don't actually see "WP:PEACE". I am not against it, but it is very bland. Chrishyman 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The linked page is weak (perhaps consider Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign), but I think the motto is just serious, not bland. I added a period at the end. --Tewy 04:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Per Chrishy man.  ~Steptrip 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, per Steptrip. :-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support A little dull. --Islomaniac 973 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened: Consensus not reached. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Peace be with you.

Edit 1. Per Tewy ---Without Wax Chrishyman 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Support. I do like the link better, but I just don't like the wording. Made the edit because others might like it. ---Without Wax Chrishyman 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened: Too few votes. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. The link is better. --Tewy 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, better link, short & simple. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians do it … less than 3 times a day.

In the style of the coffee mug jokes tailored to each profession (eg. "Teachers do it with class", "Lawyers do it wearing wigs and gowns" etc.). Could easily spawn a series of its own but this was all I could think of at the moment. Confusing Manifestation 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: (1) Not sure I get it and (2) I've fixed the link to WP:EDIANS. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added a link from "do it" to Help:Reverting that I didn't think was important enough to have its own edit. --Tewy 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I also changed the three dots to an ellipsis. --Tewy 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Shows that we revert, but not incessantly --Tewy 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment for Magnus' (and other confused people's) sake: there is a large series of one-liners out there in the form "(people X) do it (qualifier Y)" where (people X) is usually a profession or hobby and (qualifier Y) is a pun on something related to that profession or hobby, the general intent being to suggest ways that people X do "it" (ie. have sex). Confusing Manifestation 03:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is funny and get the references in it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and comment: I was suspecting that it was an allusion to that, ConMan, but thanks for alleviating any doubts I had about it. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Other sites have bosses, we have janitors.

Well, we do… —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support It really shows what an administrator here on Wikipedia is not, it reminds once again that being an administrator on Wikipedia is not a big deal. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support or caretakers Simply south 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. --Tewy 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Per TomasBat. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. per TomasBat --Valley2city₪‽ 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Great motto! Also as above Harrison-HB4026 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As above. --Islomaniac 973 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support An exact defn. of admins here in Wikipedia ^_^.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That the best you got? Wait, we take that back, sorry.

—May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose so many quotes about vandalism and such †Bloodpack† 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I thought it was humorous, yet informing. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, despite the high number of vandalism mottos, which are just the best representation of good and bad, a classic template for a story (or saying). --Tewy 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty funny. bibliomaniac15 23:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Funny, and good use of links. // DecaimientoPoético 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fight for the Empire and work for the size!

Hope it's better than the other one.Kfc1864 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, I like it. Not quite sure where you got the idea from, but it's good. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I swear I've already posted a support vote here ... ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Shows how usefull are both editors and admins alike! ♠Tom@sBat 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask not what wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for wikipedia.

--Random Say it here! 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) JFK speech, changed around.

Rejected: Per consensus and the fact that the idea has been used before. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask not what wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for wikipedia.

(Edit one) --Random Say it here! 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Been done before. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding.

Based on an old idiom. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Odd + (could be interesting so i'll support) Simply south 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't get the links. Hersfold (talk/work) 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer: It means that some editing disputes are resolved due to a third opinion. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've never heard this phrase before, partly why I was confused. I'll support though, as it'll certainly make people look twice. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, evidently where I live, this aphorism is widely known, however, I guess it's not commonplace everywhere :p ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Sure grabs my attention. --Tewy 03:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Good! Nice! Great! ♠Tom@sBat 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But I don't like spam!

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... Blast [improve me] 26.04.07 0217 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (just barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Guard the boat. Mind the tide. Don't touch my dirt.

From Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl --Random Say it here! 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Hehe. Good work. --Islomaniac 973 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: May I also say that any user can edit your userpage, but out of decorum he or she will probably not. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, despite the last link (maybe linking to WP:OWN would be more appropriate). --Tewy 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I like things that make me laugh. *Cremepuff222* 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, though I don't much appreciate users calling my user page dirt... ;-) *Cremepuff222* 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same here as this is much better than other userpages :-) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Guard the boat. Mind the tide. Don't touch my dirt.

(Edit one) changed last link to WP:OWN. --Random Say it here! 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support both versions, but this one more, due to improved link. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per the original motto's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Way - like the right way, but cheaper!

Not the Max Power way, for obvious reasons. --Islomaniac 973 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support: Please see this page which includes "Britannica vs. Wikipedia" references, however, I like what you've done with the motto. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Should "Britannica vs. Wikipedia" even be included on WP:MOTD/FUI? That's about the same as banning all vandalism nominations. --Tewy 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You do have a point; maybe we could add in a line like "Explicitly stating a Britannica vs. Wikipedia will rarely be accepted, however, if the links make the reference, then the motto has a higher chance of being approved." What do you think about that? ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't think the links fit. *Cremepuff222* 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like "right way" linking to Encyclopædia Britannica. (I, however, disagree with FUI on the Wiki vs. Brit. per Tewy. Opened discussion (moved) on it because I didn't want to remove it right off.) Chrishyman 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per consensus (barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Always show them the red hand.

Edit 1. The red hand is the image on the more serious UW templates.  ~Steptrip 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please read the second boldfaced sentence on that page.  ~Steptrip 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This makes it sounds like we should always block any who commit any form of vandalism, rather than give the progressive warnings. --Tewy 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened: Too few votes. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose. Per Magnus animum/Tewy arguments (Though I agree with Tewy slightly more) Chrishyman 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:AGF (Tewy). ♠Tom@sBat 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tewy's reasoning, there's a purpose for the leveled templates. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A word to the wise ain't necessary … it's the stupid ones that need the advice.

A famous quote by Bill Cosby, one of my favorite comedians. Chrishyman 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose per calling people stupid. Simply south 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per AGF. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Becuase of what is said above. ♠Tom@sBat 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Above Opposes. AGF doesn't apply: this is about vandals, not calling people vandals. Also, I'm saying it is stupid to be a vandal. Chrishyman 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You first must have not met the criteria mentioned in AGF to qualify as a vandal, and also, I agree that it is stupid to be a vandal, but vandals are just bored and know no better. So unless you can make the tone a bit less condescending, I am going to have to still oppose (sorry). ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take up arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing, end them.

For some of you who are not familiar with Shakespearean soliloquies, this is the opening from "To be, or not to be — that is the question." ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, to me, lenght doesn't always matter, this one's just great! —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The reason for the length requirement was so that mottos wouldn't take up the entire page only to have a single word on the second line. This motto doesn't have that problem. --Tewy 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Great links! Chrishyman 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but I think that the WP:EDIANS link is getting very' redundant. *Cremepuff222* 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The link was required to convey that I was referring to a Wikipedian's mind, or otherwise the motto wouldn't make as much sense. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nice wikified shakespear script! ♠Tom@sBat 02:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Waste not, want not.

A tad simple, maybe? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 14:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: This motto has some very good links of which I am guessing the 1st means not to create pages that fall under CSD. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Simple is often best. --Tewy 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above Chrishyman 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, per Chrishy man. *Cremepuff222* 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

T-minus 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, BLAST OFF!

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Been done before. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We will remember them

Edit 1. Removed first link (just in general, I see those as redundant), and linked to Category:Former Wikipedians. --Tewy 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I think the link fits the motto better in this one. --Tewy 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better than the first one. --Islomaniac 973 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Much better. I was trying to find a category for retired wikipedians, but I never thought of Category:Former Wikipedians. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice links! Chrishyman 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, sweet..., like grapes!! *Cremepuff222* 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edits always perdure, even though their authors may not... ♠Tom@sBat 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, Thanks for making it better for me Tewy! YuanchosaanSalutations! 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Couldn't We still link to Wikipedians? Simply south 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the river and through the woods, to Wikipedia I go!

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened: Too few votes. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: None of the versions seem to be having a good day. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the river and through the woods, to editing Wikipedia I go!

Edit one: Changed links.  ~Steptrip 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support, I get it, but it doesn't strike me as being overly amazing... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, it kinda sounds stupid.Harrison-HB4026 08:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened: Too few votes. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Links are a little confusing ... see below.

Rejected: Per consensus

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

'Edit one: Much more straightforward than the original.  ~Steptrip 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Makes sense. --Tewy 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I actually understand this; almost as much as I understand grapes. *Cremepuff222* 01:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Could-a sworn I already supported this. However I'm here now! Chrishyman 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Like the wording, but... Don´t really get the moral... ♠Tom@sBat 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Profession makes perfection.

Catchy?Kfc1864 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Been done before. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you give a mouse a cookie...

Intresting motto, from the book by Laura Numeroff, If You Give A Mouse A Cookie. --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: Then he'll want milk ;-) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I still like grapes better than cookies though. :-) *Cremepuff222* 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support! 'Tis good. (what is it with you and grapes, Cremepuff?) Hersfold (talk/work) 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Mmmhhhhh. Now I have to make some cookies! Chrishyman 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. <rumble>. bibliomaniac15 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (by a landslide). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

From Harry Potter. ♠Tom@sBat 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval, ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

Edit 1. Changed link. --Tewy 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support this version - link is better here, but I'm not sure this is really a motto... Hersfold (talk/work) 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC) See below
  • Support: I was hoping no one would link to User:Willy On Wheels, and thankfully, no one did. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but how's this:

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

→ He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

Edit 2 clarification (don't get me wrong, I've personally read all six released books and I really can't wait 'till July, but there are people who might not understant it) or is Harry Potter to be concidered too popular for the inclusion of such a link? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, as per above. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Better to be safe; the arrow's not that distracting. --Tewy 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support this version - same reasons cited by me above, but the arrow should be included. I'd suggest linking it to Willy on Wheels instead, but that would somewhat defeat the purpose of the motto. Hersfold (talk/work) 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This version´s better... ♠Tom@sBat 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Big Harry Potter fan, and the arrow adds clarity to those unfamiliar. Chrishyman 15:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember the past, live in the present and hope for the future.

Or you could replace it with newbie, WP:USERS and admin... YuanchosaanSalutations! 08:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Support: I think it sounds rather deep, but it is also rather boring. Sorry :-/ ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support, it's just okay... *Cremepuff222* 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Cool! I really like it! ♠Tom@sBat 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, it's the network.
Can you edit now? Good.
Can you edit now? Good.

From the Verizon commercials. --Random Say it here! 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Been done before. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With more power comes more responsability

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • comment shouldnt it be "With great power, comes great responsibility" †Bloodpack† 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yah, and isn't responsibility spelled wrong? *Cremepuff222* 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooooops, sorry... I´ll fix te grammar mistake right now... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Now, i´m not very sure of that... Hmmmmm... Let´s wait for some other opinion; if there is strong encouragement for changing it to that, then i´ll change it. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Administrators are not on a higher level than other users, and I feel that this motto is implying the contrary. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With more power comes more responsibility

Edit 1: Fixed grammar mistake (changed responsability to responsibility). ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i still feel its, "With great power comes great responsibility" =/ †Bloodpack† 01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, no obvious consensus. *Cremepuff222* 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With great power comes great responsibility

Edit 2 see the links given †Bloodpack† 01:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I like it! It is good becuase this way it doesn´t show administrators as people of a higher rank, better users. This was criticized before by a user, but now, that certainly aint a problem. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
aye, its like, the people (regular users) shouldnt be afraid of the government (admins), its the government that should be afraid of the people (users). Its a government for the people =) †Bloodpack† 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! =) ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 02:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
sadly, its been done before (10-17) =/ †Bloodpack† 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh! :( ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened: Too few votes. (Note: When archiving this motto, be sure to place it underneath the Edit 1 version of the original.) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, it doesn't make me feel below the admins. Yay! *Cremepuff222* 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

→ One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them

From the Lord of the rings; I hope there aren't too many links. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, I thought that the links fit greatly! I like that quote too (I'm a huge LotR fan!!). The only bad thing is that I can't fit the motto in my edit summary... *Cremepuff222*
  • Support ♠Tom@sBat 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Like Magnus Cremepuff222, I'm a huge fan of the series. Like the use of links too --Random Say it here! 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (barely, barely, barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bop to the top!

From a High School Musical song; the one sung by Sharpey and Ryan. ♠Tom@sBat 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: Simple yet catchy. Also, it is interesting enough where people are going to want to see where the links go. --Random Say it here! 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Although Bop would be a better link (in my opinion). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, great, I have the song stuck in my head now... Bop, bop, bop, bop to the top! Wipe away your... XD *Cremepuff222* 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Impotent structures, strong armies, Vast territory; these are the bases for a powerfull empire.

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, edit 3 approved. *Cremepuff222* 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Impotent structures, strong armies, vast territory; these are the bases for a powerfull empire.

Edit 1: Dscapitalized _Vast_ and changed link for _Impotent structures_ from _Wikipedia:What is an Article?_ to _Wikipedia:Featured Article_. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: powerfull or powerful? --Strangerer (Talk) 14:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, edit 3 approved. *Cremepuff222* 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Impotent structures, strong armies, vast territory; these are the bases for a powerful empire.

Edit 2: Grammar correction: Changing powerfull to powerful. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, edit 3 approved. *Cremepuff222* 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Impregnable structures, strong armies, vast territory; these are the bases for a powerful empire.

Edit 3: Changed phrasing, link. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 15:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Support, please change the armies link to something other than administrators so that I don't feel left out... :) *Cremepuff222* 20:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT, OH YEAH! I FEEL SO SPECIAL NOW!! Thanks, Magnus animum. *Cremepuff222* 00:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved, consensus obviously in favor of this version. *Cremepuff222* 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me 859 loyal warriors and I shall bring peace from one horizon to another.

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: (1) Jimbo hardly edits anything around here and (2) Admins are not the only loyal warriors. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, what about all of the RC patrollers, the new page patrollers, ...? *Cremepuff222* 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sysopping is nothing special and no big deal. --Valley2city₪‽ 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree with Cremepuff. It isn't only sysops who are loyals- there are also beuracrats, Stewards and more. And so normal people like us are disloyal Warriors? And Jimbo is in a position of power, but doesn't edit that much.Kfc1864 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, nobody supported it. *Cremepuff222* 17:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikpedians, prepare for glory!

from the movie 300. If feels good to be vindicated =) †Bloodpack† 03:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Being unblocked implies that you were blocked, which is not glorious at all. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
even if you have a valid reason why you shouldnt be blocked? †Bloodpack† 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, nobody supports it with much enthusiasism. *Cremepuff222* 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians, prepare for glory!

Edit 1 for spelling. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, nobody supports it with much enthusiasism. *Cremepuff222* 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia... Ummm... Where You gain instight to Knowledge... I think...

One's mind is plauged by stupidity... Piranha Ind. Making the world think, for better understanding... 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: A similar one has been nominated before (scroll down the page and find the mastercard commercial spoof, also, as there are many more mottoes that have been nominated, you may wish to check the archives / WP:MOTD/IDEA in the future :-) ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, per being used already. *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The more you risk, the greater the rewards

The Rewards link could direct somewhere else than barnstars DarkAvenger 09:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, already used. *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The more you risk, the greater the rewards.

Edit 1. Changed link to criteria for featured articles and added a fullstop. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • comment I like the changes. I had a hard time working out what the reward should link to :) --DarkAvenger 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, simple, yet effective. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1: Avoids creating an overtone too similar to a previously nominated motto. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 22:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, sweet like grapes. *Cremepuff222* 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved, consensus reached; different enough than the previous. *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why must we fight
every day, every night?
It isn't right!

How's that? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 07:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved, consensus in favor. *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it!

Reason: It can inspire other people to edit. Harrison-HB4026 05:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Rejected, already used. *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it!

Edit one: Added needed links.  ~ Steptrip 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Like it with links. Good ones at that! ---Without Wax Chrishyman 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the linked version. Nice team work, Harrison and Steptrip. :) Sarah 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I can! - Support this one I mean!--VS talk 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support --Islomaniac 973 08:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, can we permanently tack this to the Help Desk Header? Hersfold (talk/work) 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support even without a "ring" =] †Bloodpack† 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry to rain on the party, but a similar motto has been nominated. It's essentially the same, but with an ending. --Tewy 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, already used. *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Try and try until you succeed!

kinda lazy to think of the links appropriate for the "try" and "try", anyone wanna collab with this one? †Bloodpack† 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, now ive provided the links †Bloodpack† 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, it's kinda redundant to the motto a few lines below... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Technically neither has been approved, so this is still up for grabs if the other is rejected (although at the moment that is unlikely…). --Tewy 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • btw, this phrase is commonly used as an inspiration, like an advice in everything that we do. please fill up the word "try" with the appropriate links †Bloodpack† 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Just not Chinese-ified enough to make a fortune cookie :-)  ~ Steptrip 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected, doesn't promise gaining support in reopening. *Cremepuff222* 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Game, set, match, vandals!

A bit of a twist, don't you think? Oh, by the way, the April Fools' Day motto really got me! :-) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 09:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Support as it seems to say vandals have won but they've lost. Simply south 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Doesn't strike me as the vandals winning. --Tewy 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support, I'm not quite sure that the links fit... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Strikes me as a tad boring.  ~Steptrip 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Confusing meaning, and depends on reader's Point Of View. Chrishyman 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. No obvious consensus. Chrishyman 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think that if a nomination has enough votes, but no consensus, it will probably not gain consensus after more votes, so a reopening is unnecessary. However, if the closer feels that the nomination stands a chance at becomming approved, they may reopen it. --Tewy 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I felt the first, so where does it go? ---Without Wax Chrishyman 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this a serious nomination or was it proposed as an April Fools Day joke? If it's a serious proposal, I Oppose rather strongly. Sarah 06:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the motto and the links are saying two different things. The motto's what people are going to see, and it implies the vandals win. I'm thinking no. Hersfold (talk/work) 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus (though weak). Chrishyman 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A revert a day keeps the vandals away.

From "An apple a day keeps the doctor away". I like it without the links, but they can be added for that "wiki" look. Chrishyman 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per nominator's (my) withdrawal and motto done before. Chrishyman 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect.

Common maxim, I like the links. Responses? Chrishyman 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. It's really not that bad. --Tewy 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, quite simple, yet effective! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: How true ...  ~ Steptrip 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I really like it :) --DarkAvenger 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, also added a fullstop at the end

Accepted. Per consensus Chrishyman 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletionists: We seriously PROD buttock.

Inspired by Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of books, especially a character from the Ankh-Morpork City Watch, Constable Dorfl. Dorfl is a golem, whose aim as a Watchman is "To Serve The Public Trust, Protect The Innocent And Seriously Prod Buttock" (kick arse). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral and subsequent comment: (1) I think that buttock could have a better link, (2) See below and (3) Great to see that you're back, Vanderdecken.  ~Steptrip 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My reason for the original nom was the pun between PROD (proposed deletion) and 'to prod buttock', a euphemism for 'kick arse'. Unlink buttock if you want, it was just for people who didn't instantly get the joke. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 2's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletionists: We seriously kick butt

Edit one: Changed phrasing and links.  ~Steptrip 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn: By nominator (myself).  ~ Steptrip 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per nominator's withdrawal. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletionists: We seriously kick butt

Edit 2. I didn't get why it linked to WP:BJAODN. Keep it simple, stupid. --Tewy 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. --Tewy 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It means that we (and yes, I'll confess that I am a deletionist) try to delete content that does not belong in an encyclopedia (hence Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, which was the only good link of which I could think for unencyclopedic content :-)  ~ Steptrip 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, sorry, I like this one better too, Steptrip. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It's self-evident that my Edit 1 version will not pass, so I support this version and withdraw the 1st edit off of the original.  ~ Steptrip 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same reason as the one I used here. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus (just barely). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The key to true success, is knowing how to revert Vandalism

I thought of this motto after comparing it to a phrase I heard somewhere, their is no real origin I just thought it sounded good. Tellyaddict 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sorry but it is not just about reverting vandalism. Simply south 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Too straightforward, try bending it a little bit ;-) Also, there is more to vandal fighting, such as warning and reporting troublesome editors.  ~Steptrip 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I thought that it sounded pretty cool too. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Success is not just reverting vandalism, but I do like the idea. How about re-wording this?--Canadianshoper 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Success is what you think it is, not protecting a website from vandalism. Harrison-HB4026 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to talk.

Nominating this. I think this is better than linking to Wikipedia:Talk page. --Islomaniac 973 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support Looks reasonable, if rather bland. Simply south 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak oppose. Boring. --Tewy 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, sorry, it's just too boring (I added a period too). --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Too boring, try Chinese-ifying it to make a Fortune cookie :-)  ~Steptrip 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: a 24hr community

Worth a try. Simply south 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. A link to prove that Wikipedia is active 24 hours a day would be nice. --Tewy 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you think one from the watchlist or stats would be good? Simply south 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So maybe Wikipedia: a 24hr community. But i suppose this may not work. Simply south 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. In favor of edit 1. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: a 24 hour community

Edit 1. Just like User:Simply south's idea above, but I linked it so that it shows the changes of the last 1 day, and formatted it so it looks like a normal link. I think that's an acceptable way to show activity for 24 hours. It's biggest problem is if the user doesn't have a very populated watchlist. --Tewy 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: If you look closely at your watchlist, you might see a WikiGnome, or me, or both at the same time!!  ~Steptrip 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, cool like grapes! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It still has its weaknesses. --Tewy 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus (barely). --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Think. Wikipedia.

Simple motto. Hope you guys like it. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I spent a while thinking about better links, and searched around Wikipedia for a while, but couldn't find any. Therefore, I've added an edit 1 below that rejects the link idea entirely. --Tewy 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose in favor of edit 1. WODUP 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. In favor of edit 1. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Think. Wikipedia.

Edit 1. No links. --Tewy 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. --Tewy 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, sweet and simple. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Strikes me as a bit dull (or I could just be cranky :-)  ~Steptrip 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I was just cranky.  ~Steptrip 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. It's not dull; it's simple. :) WODUP 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Per WODUP (I was evidently cranky :-)  ~Steptrip 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, sure, it works. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't know why I've not Supported this before. Islomaniac 973 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I like it. It sounds good.Harrison-HB4026 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Tohru Honda13 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

→ You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by the way he eats his jelly beans.

From a quote on Kamope's userpage by Ronald Reagan.  ~Steptrip 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, it is very funny and the links fit! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting. Apparently another version is You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jelly beans. --Tewy 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I really like this one, but if it's a quote, it needs to be in quotation marks and sourced to Pres Reagan. Sarah 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: If I put quotations around the motto, it would mess up {{Motd cquote}}, also, as you've probably noticed :P this is a very informal project, so we rarely source mottoes (unless the motto is in a foreign language, then we include a link to the article upon which the quote is based, just to let you know).  ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A reference to Reagan would be preferrable, I think, to give the motto some more meaning. A simple "→" at the beginning would do. --Tewy 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 01:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some things that knowledge can't buy, for everything else, there's Wikipedia.

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Has this been done before? Good otherwise. Simply south 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support if new. Hehe. Bit strange with "knowledge" linking to "Wikipedia" though. --Islomaniac 973 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: To IslandHopper973: Wikipedia can't have some materials on the site because either (1) The material was tried as a reference and was unreliable or (2) the material is under a non-free license. To Everyone else: Excellent motto!!  ~Steptrip 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Much deeper than I thought, then. I just had it down as a Mastercard reference (vis. if you need knowledge for something, you can use Wikipedia). --Islomaniac 973 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Change vote to Strong Support. Actually, I think I might not have been clear. I meant "it's odd that the word "knowledge" has a wikilink to "wikipedia" ", not "why does it have wikipedia and knowledge in the same sentence". --Islomaniac 973 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think it's been done before. --Tewy 02:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't this from a Mastercard ad? --Canadianshoper 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: See below. The commercial was as follows: There are some things money can't buy, for everything else, there's Wikipedia.  ~Steptrip 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. In favor of edit 1. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some things money can buy. For everything else, there's Wikipedia.

Edit 1. As with Islomaniac 973, the "knowledge" link confused me, so I changed the links and reworded it in a more interesting way. --Tewy 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ALERT! There is something Urgent you have to know! Click here to find out and don't forget to do this if you see any of this!

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Three things: the final link should link to vandalism really and the motto is too long. Finally i am unable to write an edit summary! Simply south 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too long. --Tewy 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and subsequent oppose: Look below.  ~Steptrip 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. None of the versions seem to be gaining any support. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your urgent attention is required.

Edit 1: Omitted most of the motto, but keeping the important part of it.  ~Steptrip 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support, it's better than the original, but it's just not "fortune-cookie" enough... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Look below, it's either more annoying or Chinese-ified enough (I'm not sure which at the present moment, however :-)  ~ Steptrip 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. None of the versions seem to be gaining any support. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your urgent attention is required.

Edit two: Per Cremepuff222.  ~ Steptrip 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. How is this different from edit 1? --Tewy 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer: It's from the pop-up ads that really grab your attention, so I just made it blink. I guess that would be "fortune-cookie" enough :-)  ~ Steptrip 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Ugh! Blinking text is extremely annoying. · AO Talk 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hersfold (talk/work) would oppose if he wasn't having a seizure. 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. None of the versions seem to be gaining any support. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

These servers ain't big enough for the two of us.

From, "This town ain't big enough for the two of us" Yours Truly- DannyQuack (My name is Danny... and I Quack) 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose, find a better link or two and I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: See below.  ~Steptrip 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's plenty of room; no need to block anyone. --Tewy 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Clarification, in western movies people often say this before a duel. It doesn't mean that they can't fit the person in the town, but that the person simply shouldn't be in the town. This motto is speaking to vandals. Maybe it should be "This encyclopedia ain't big enough for the two of us." Yours Truly- DannyQuack (My name is Danny... and I Quack) 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) Still, a duel implies only one winner. This makes it sound like we should just block all the vandals, rather than try to convert them to the "good" side. --Tewy 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The alternative below links to WP:ARCHIVE, which, in my opinion, fits the wording better.  ~Steptrip 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Archives just move old discussions to a storage area, but don't actually create more room on the servers. --Tewy 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. No support. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

These servers ain't big enough for the two of us.

Edit 1: Per Cremepuff222.  ~Steptrip 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Again, I don't see how this exacty applies to Wikipedia. --Tewy 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Archiving talk and user talk pages is a part of Wikipedia that reduces the size of a page that needs to be reduced.  ~ Steptrip 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't like the animosity... --DarkAvenger 08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand exactly what is trying to be said, and I even really like it. But I only understood it after DannyQuack's above paragraph. And since it is a motto, not a novel, I oppose. Chrishyman 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: I'm guessing this motto means that a lack of major edits doesn't mean that you're not helping the encyclopædia. Tell me if I'm wrong.  ~Steptrip 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Neutral That's how I'd interpret it as well. --Islomaniac 973 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, well, I guess you could interperet it that way, but a clarification may be needed. You could also interperet it as just because someone doesn't edit for a long time doesn't nessecarily mean they're missing, although I like your idea better, so please fix links if possible. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I tried to understand it, but the links don't seem to fit very well. Make it more straight-forward and I'll like it better. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Look below.  ~Steptrip 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. In favor or edit 1. --Tewy 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When mint becomes berry, what do you become?

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, I'm not sure I get it, sorry... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Unless you can improve the phrasing.  ~Steptrip 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How does a vandal becoming a Wikipedian change me at all? --Tewy 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bad, phrasing, and how vandals are mint confuses me. How is mint bad? --Canadianshoper 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favor of Edit one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When mint becomes berry, what do you become?

Edit 1. Much better links. Vandals are sometimes already Wikipedians, just not good ones. Now when a vandal becomes a admin, that is defiantly weird. Also, I like "you" as being Wikipedians as a whole, not "you" as the specific reader. Chrishyman 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Per my idea. Chrishyman 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Easy, a retired wikipedian ;-)  ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think I "get it" either. ..? --Strangerer (Talk) 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to Strangerer What it means is: If a vandal becomes good, what do good Wikipedians become? Harrison-HB4026 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A bird in the air is worth two on the ground.

– AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Not sure I get it.  ~Steptrip 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The wording doesn't make sense. I've added an edit 1 below. --Tewy 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I do support Edit one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval.

A bird in the air is worth two on the ground.

Edit 1. I really didn't like the way this used "good" editors and "bad" editors. I tried to reword it like, A bird in the air is worth two on the ground., where "air" would link to a page about "good" editing, and of course "ground" linked to "bad" editing. Unfortunately, all I could think of for the "good" editing page was Wikipedia:Administrators, who aren't any more "good" than non-administrators. So, this is a new idea entirely. --Tewy 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, it's pretty cool with the new links! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: pretty self-explanatory.  ~Steptrip 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, this version's the best one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A bird in the air is worth two on the ground

Edit two: Changed link from Wikipedia:What is an article? to WP:FA.  ~Steptrip 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose, though I do support Edit one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A bird in the air is worth two on the ground.

Edit three: Added link to WP:VAND and changed the placement of the links.  ~Steptrip 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose, though I do support Edit one. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't shove a wand up the troll's nose, Harry!

Inspired by an event in the first Harry Potter book. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, although I strongly suggest using WP:BEANS as the first link instead. --Tewy 05:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • See below. --Tewy 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per Edit 1's approval. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't shove a wand up the troll's nose, Harry!

  • Edit 1: Changed link to WP:BEANS --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Support. --Tewy 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A wand and a bean isn't exactly the same thing, so I don't know... bibliomaniac15 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: There is a motto below that I nominated that is similar to this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steptrip (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment and subsequent support: Bibliomaniac: It means "Don't feed the trolls."  ~Steptrip 01:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered finited infinity!

A spoof of a mathematical paradox.  ~Steptrip 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, you come with some great oxymorons and irony, Mr. Steptrip. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not even going to lie. I just don't get it. heheh --Goodface87 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer: Don't worry, unless you're a math nerd like me, I expect many people not to get it (no offense)  ~Steptrip 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I interpret it as saying that Wikipedia has a finite number of articles, with infinite knowledge/capacity to expand, although it did take some thinking to come to that conclusion. --Tewy 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Don't overthink. I simply meant that Wikipedia has a large # of articles (6,820,546 to be exact).  ~Steptrip 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Heh heh, guess I'm a math nerd then, hunh? Chrishyman 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I get it, but I think it is too inaccessible for non-math nerds and non-native english speakers

Rejected: Reopened once, and no consensus. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do what you think right and just.

Andrew Jackson's popular quote, with a few links. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book, review me!) 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support. It's a little dull, but the links fit. --Tewy 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support The links fit well. --Islomaniac 973 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Consensus favors support. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wipe them out—all of them. (Palpatine)

Enough is enough, time to show them what for. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support I like this one. --Islomaniac 973 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --Tewy 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, for battering recieved above. :-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I try to. By the way, was this nominated by the same moron who liked to quote philosophers?  ~Steptrip 01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Per consensus. Chrishyman 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue is the new red!

Would be a nice one to bring attention to two wikipedia sections where many people start and few people stay. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 06:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment- don't get that...it makes me think of red links. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, I understand what's trying to be said, but it's a bit weak. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Per Cremepuff222. --Tewy 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I really like it. Alot. Think a bit, and you'll get it. Chrishyman 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I think its fine. Simply south 11:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: But I do hate ditsy fashion talk.  ~Steptrip 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I really like this one. Good work. Sarah 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great, a motd not relating to vandalism :) --DarkAvenger 09:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. Chrishyman 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

An eye for an eye

Think it comes from "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The motto implied revenge, which isn't a good message for users. --Tewy 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Per a weaker incarnation of Tewy's statement.  ~Steptrip 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I love the linking, but not the revenge bit DarkAvenger 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per consensus. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia how may we help you?

Usually said at burger joints or at technical service. (i.e. "Welcome to XXX, how may we help you?) Real96 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Been done before. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Never show the white flag!

Inspired by an essay I came across. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment- surrendering has nothing to do with DOF --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I meant don't physically use the white flag, since flags shouldn't be overused like in the essay link. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I also like this one. --Islomaniac 973 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I never do; I show them the red hand.  ~Steptrip 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm more of a "literal" kind of guy, and it didn't really strike me as apealing. Chrishyman 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Chrishy man. I interpret it as "never surrender". The link doesn't help explain anything about how a white flag would be different from, say, a red flag. --Tewy 05:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd say that it was meant to work on two levels: the superliteral "don't overuse flags", and the literal "never surrender". The message, however, is specifically in the superliteral, and "never show the flag-with-a-yellow-circle-and-rays-coming-off-on-a-red-background", say, does not carry the literal that stops it being dull. Blimey, that text is horrendous. --Islomaniac 973 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Reopened once before, and there was no consensus this time. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving isn't all that bad...

Some people hate moving houses... --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support. A bit dull. --Tewy 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Trust me, yes it is.  ~Steptrip 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved: Consensus reached. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Those that I fight I do not hate, those that I guard I do not love.

Good principle that all should follow, don't you think? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Very nice messages all tied together in one, simple motto. --Tewy 22:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Good links with good words. --Islomaniac 973 11:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support, very nice idea, T-borg! We need more mottos like this one! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I like, I like! Chrishyman 03:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: This motto is ... just ... great!!  ~Steptrip 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a little tricky, but the message is important. to me it says no hate, no POV --DarkAvenger 08:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved per strong consensus. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to run with the big dogs, you need to learn how to pee in the tall grass.

A more informative motto. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book, review me!) 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral I am for the general idea, however the motto is too long, try simplifying it.  ~Steptrip 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My only objections are, as Steptrip said, length, and also that administrators are simply janitors—they aren't at any higher level from other wikipedians. Otherwise this is a very...interesting motto. --Tewy 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- Yep...sure is interesting --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Eh... you're comparing "How to pee" with the admin's how-to guide? o_O Doesn't quite win me over, but it's funny. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to run with the big dogs, you need to learn how to pee in the tall grass.

Edit 1. I think that the original was very funny, but this edit brings some of the links together as an RfA theme. WODUP 07:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong support. One of the more interesting mottos. --Tewy 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both versions: Both are very interesting.  ~Steptrip 01:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I do think that these links are much better. Nice one, WODU! *Cremepuff222* 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Being an administrator does not make you f a higher authority than other users, this would simply support that thought.Tellyaddict 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like the wording and the linking, but the message is not one I wish to convey. Agreeing with Tellyaddict above DarkAvenger 09:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don´t like the wording; sure wouldn´t wanna see it in my userpage, where I have the Motto of the Day template. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is chewing gum for the mind.

A slight twist of Frank Lloyd Wright's version. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book, review me!) 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. This is becoming a slight pet peeve of mine, but there's not much reason to link to Wikipedia when we're on Wikipedia. Otherwise this is great. --Tewy 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- sounds like an ad to me...--The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I like it -- it's catchy. But I agree with Tewy. Don't link to Wikipedia. -- Theunicyclegirl 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: I actually heard of a study that proved that chewing gum helps boost your IQ.  ~Steptrip 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support but only if the link is removed. I love mottos that doesn't need linking, and this one is fine without DarkAvenger 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA, XfD, you vote is your voice

To get people to vote more. Dfrg.msc 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus. See below edits. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Sam needs you

Edit one Per Cremepuff222's request. -Steptrip 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Bland, sorry. --Tewy 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, it made me laugh! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is bland. WODUP 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I'm not a fan of the saying, and I would think you would link [[Wikipedia]] or [[Main Page]] for Uncle Sam. Chrishyman 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus. See edits 1, 2, and 3. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Sam needs you

Edit one: Per Chrishyman's request.  ~Steptrip 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is more like Edit 1 of Edit 1. --Tewy 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Sam needs you

Edit two. I think that applying the link to donating and fundraising is much more relevant. bibliomaniac15 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Sam needs you.

Edit three. Links to Wikipedia:About because Wikipedia gets linked to way too much and adds a period. WODUP 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Semi-Support. Still a little bleh, but better links. Chrishyman 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Good idea, I suppose. I'd introduce an edit to eliminate the Special:Mypage link altogether (and merge "you" into Wikimedia:Fundraising), but there are enough edits as it is. --Tewy 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Well, at least the Special:Mypage link stayed :P  ~Steptrip 01:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like the linking of Uncle Sam with Wikipedia as it seems to be celebrating the cultural bias which is a problem here. Three years before Uncle Sam got in on the act, the original version of the phrase was "Your Country Needs You" so how about adapting it as "Your encyclopedia needs you!"? --Spondoolicks 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your encyclopedia needs you!

Edit 4. Wow, another edit... (based on Spondoolicks's idea above). --Tewy 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Not too bad. --Tewy 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Tewy's vanity :-)  ~Steptrip 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support This one nailed it! DarkAvenger 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. WODUP 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

The Wikipedia alphabet, although WP:J links to WikiProject Jazz, WP:X links to WikiProject Christianity and there were no shortcuts for Y and Z. Simply south 11:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Sorry, but it's about as interesting as a table of contents. Few people are going to take the time to click all the links, and it's pretty long. --Tewy 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Why do you oppose this one if you supported T-minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1?  ~Steptrip 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It wasn't as long, and was interesting enough in itself. If that one was just a list of numbers, much like this one is, I would probably oppose it. But it had that certain twist that made it interesting. --Tewy 22:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think this one is overdoing it a tad... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: By your comment, I think you meant a tad or a tad :D  ~Steptrip 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Therefore can anyone offer any improvements? Simply south 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Look below:

Rejected. See edit one. Chrishyman 17:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I know my ABCs!

Edit one: Condensed the motto.  ~Steptrip 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, next time won't you sing with me? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I like it, but not completely. I like mottoes that have links directly referencing to the motto itself, not just linking pages because their redirect has the same letter. Arg, the frustration of personal preference! Also, took off extra exclamation point. ;) ---Without Wax Chrishyman 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Cool, why didn't I think of that before?  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I fixed the problem of the stray "s" by replacing the space with "<b></b>". --Tewy 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Per consensus. Chrishyman 17:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I contributed

Ave Wikipedia — Randall Bart 08:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Motto done before. Chrishyman 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Three is the magic number

Don't know if this has been done before. AxG ۝۝۝҈ ►talk►guests 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. There have been a few mottos with "three" or "3" in them, that linked to WP:3RR, but I don't remember anything with this wording. --Tewy 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. A bit on the dull side. --Tewy 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Per Tewy.  ~Steptrip 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, I thought that "7" was the lucky or magic number. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Change link. I think it fits better with Wikipedia:Third opinion. bibliomaniac15 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, brings back a lot of irritating adverts from when BBC Three was launched. Thank you very much. --Islomaniac 973 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favor of edit 1. WODUP 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. See Edit 1. Chrishyman 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Three is the magic number.

Edit 1. bibliomaniac15's idea. --Tewy 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I prefer linking to WP:3O rather than WP:3RR. WODUP 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Much better links.  ~Steptrip 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support:. This version. AxG ҈ ►talk►guests 11:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. Chrishyman 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Often imitated, never duplicated

Origin not known yet... zero » 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened. Too few votes. --Tewy 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Doesn't make complete sense. --Tewy 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: The "Edit one" version was approved so, per MOTD policy, this one must be rejected.  ~Steptrip 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Often imitated, never duplicated

Edit one, I think this fits the quote better. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Ah, much nicer. --Tewy 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I like this version a lot better. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I like how it highlights this article and is amusing.--Napoleon Dynamite42 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved: 4/0/0 consensus is reached.  ~Steptrip 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The buck stops here

Derived from the popular expression by Harry S. Truman.  ~Steptrip You raise me up 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The buck stops here.

Edit one: Changed the first link from WP:VAND to WP:BJAODN.  ~Steptrip 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - great! We need more people to visit BJAODN anyway, it's hilarious. This survived for seven hours. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Arbcom shutting down BJAODN?! Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not saying that. It's saying that ArbCom will not put up with Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. No need to worry, BJAODN has survived 2 MfDs, hasn't it? If it can do that, it could survive anything :-)  ~Steptrip 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per original nomination's approval. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Have Source - Will Edit

From Have Gun - Will Travel. Please tell me if this has been done before. Islomaniac 973 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge is prerequisite to survival

A famous quote from Carl Sagan's Cosmos. If its been done before, Sorry!! I'm new to this project. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, although I don't know if I would honestly trust my life with Wikipedia... If you want to check if a motto has been done before, you should check the schedule page, the frequently used ideas page, or you can simply run a google search much like this. --Tewy 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. It's a good application, in my opinion, of Wikipedia being a source of lots of information. Chrishyman 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent first motto. bibliomaniac15 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Much better than my first motto :-)  ~Steptrip 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, we have a winner!! I'll look forward for your future mottos, Cosmos! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

A famous quote from Isaac Asimov's Foundation book. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Or, alternatively...

  • Strong Support: I've heard this quote on my school's daily announcements, and I like the quote, the motto, and the links.  ~Steptrip 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I might suggest adding a period to the end as well. --Tewy 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. WODUP 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, not bad. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 07:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is the last refuge of the incompetent

Same as above, except that... well, you get the picture. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I like the first one better.  ~Steptrip 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I changed the heading level of this to make it an edit of the one above, considering they are so similar. --Tewy 23:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of the two, I prefer the original. WODUP 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: After reading the comments above, I'm leaning towards the original quote also. I just presented both to see what the community prefered. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, this one makes more sense to me, as not all vandalism is violent. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're right ... but all of it is stupid.  ~Steptrip 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per consensus. See original nomination. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Will edit for food.

First ever motto. Got the "food" link to Wikipedia as the whole "knowledge is food for the brain" quote. Chrishy Man 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Support, I don't edit for food, I edit for fun! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favor of edit 1. WODUP 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. See edit 1. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Will edit for food.

Edit 1. I much prefer the literal meaning. --Tewy 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong support. A great application of the saying. --Tewy 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nice. I guess I went overkill on the links then? Ha, but thanks for the edit/support. Chrishyman 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support this funny motto. WODUP 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Short, sweet, and funny. A very good motto. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added a period to the end. WODUP 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes me hungry :P. bibliomaniac15 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Hunger stikres - brings back a lot of memories...--The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: How true :P  ~Steptrip 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I will be out of town on the day this goes in to be approved or dismissed. Could someone leave me a note of my Talk page about what happens. Thanks in advance Chrishyman 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ich bin ein Wikipedian.

Another simple motto, based on the famous JFK speech. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Since we're on the English Wikipedia, and a large quantity of users (myself included) hasn't learned Deutsch, wouldn't it be better to translate the motto from German to English?  ~Steptrip 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In response to Steptrip, see Ich bin ein Berliner. In response to the motto, it's been done before. --Tewy 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, did not know. Withdraw then. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. --Tewy 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support! I had a moment of stupidity in my oppose. Per this discussion, a motto similar to an older motto can be nominated again if the original nomination was rejected. I opposed on the grounds of similarity, but failed to realize that the original nomination was rejected. Therefore, this nomination can be approved with supporting consensus, and so I support because this is just a very good motto. --Tewy 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to Steptrip - The phrase should not be translated, it loses any and all historic and cultural meaning. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, Tewy's right. I also forgot that! :) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 07:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, great motto, memorable, appropriate. Islomaniac 973 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Sorry, I had a moment of stupidity and forgot that I could Google to find its meaning.  ~Steptrip 12:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. Edit 1 can be addressed with the arrow link. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ich bin ein Wikipedian

Edit 1. My original suggestion, which helps clarify the meaning. --Tewy 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support this one as well. They're both good mottos. --Tewy 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat above -- I like the arrow that links to the original saying's article, and I like the idea that the motto can be used to learn something. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: We could just enact the proposal about a link to the phrases meaning, couldn't we?  ~Steptrip 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Per original nomination's approval. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

This motto is from a famous latin phrase, literally meaning: "in necessary things, unity (consensus); in uncertain things, freedom (be bold); in everything, compassion (be civil)". I think it speaks for itself, however, I leave it to the community on whether we should put it in latin, or as its english translation. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support both versions, in case the latin one doesn't get approved, the motto's still pretty good. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Latin. There have been a few latin mottos in the past, and I think the links fit the words. --Tewy 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I like Latin phrases... --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Sounds very smart.  ~Steptrip 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wouldn't the motto make more sense if "unitas" linked to WP:CONSENSUS, "libertas" linked to WP:BOLD, and "caritas" link to WP:CIVIL respectively, instead of entire phrases?  ~Steptrip 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • They do. --Tewy 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I mean if the links were individual words respectively, instead of entire phrases being links.  ~Steptrip 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Like this?... - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 20:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support of Latin. Wikipedia needs some more Latin mottoes. And I think it is better with full phrases linked. Chrishyman 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Edit 2 seems to have gained more support, considering it is nearly exactly this version. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

Edit 1:

  • Support!! Although either would be good. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 20:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. For edits, be sure to lower the heading level by 1. --Tewy 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I prefer linking the entire phrase. I suppose it just looks better. --Tewy 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Per my idea.  ~Steptrip 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, cooleo! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected. Consensus seems to favor the versions with the entire phrases linked (original and edit 2). --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

→ In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

Since you all seem to prefer the Latin, the arrow links to the phrase's article for people who don't speak Latin. WODUP 02:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Interesting way to link to the article; other mottos could benefit from some form of this. I've opened a discussion on the talk page about a standard way to do this. --Tewy 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for helping out the Latin illiterates. bibliomaniac15 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I two am too lazy to do a google search or something or another... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: The cabal of laziness!!! Otherwise, per bibliomaniac15 :D  ~Steptrip 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved. Per consensus. Support seems to favor this version the most. --Tewy 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One small step for wikipedian, one Giant leap for vicipedicus.

AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Been done before. --Tewy 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I guess we'll also have to popularize the Frequently Used Ideas section. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I added a note at the top of the nominations page. --Tewy 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected: Per consensus.  ~Steptrip 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Archive_5&oldid=1190104368"