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.

In review

If life gives you lemons, you had better go get water and sugar too or your lemonade will not taste very good.

This is a slight alteration of a quote I heard from one of my co-workers. I normally wouldn't be happy with referring to Stubs as "Lemons," but I think it works in the context of the quote- namely, something that's not all that great on its own, but with water and sugar becomes something really sweet. I am not totally satisfied with the link for water, though, so I am open to suggestions on that point. It would be nice if there was a page with information on the inclusion of supporting materials in general... does anyone know a page like that? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - But there is nothing here to say, really, besides that. Good motto! —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, that's the best in a long time. And being the old man here, I mean it. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Old man"? I haven't seen you at MOTD in eons, Biblio. Casual interest does not suffice for committed experience. ;) —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Prepare to cross the line.

Chamal ^talk 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Short, direct and to the point with a good message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Just the type of motto we need for a change of pace. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Rather than be less
Cared not to be at all.

John Milton (1608–1674), Paradise Lost, Book II (1667) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification Request - This is another one of those that is difficult for me to interpret without context. I mean, I can guess the context since it comes from Paradise Lost, but I can't be certain. Could you clarify, please? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Ah, I love to gloat. Like most of Pjoef's mottoes, though, the wording is a little archaic, but it makes perfect sense to me. Modern translation: "It's better to be less than nothing at all." —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 06:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Upon further thought, weak support. The fact that some other users don't understand the motto perhaps weakens the prospects of this one. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I figured that that was what it meant, I just wanted to be sure because of the archaic phrasing. I've read Paradise Lost, I'm neither an illiterate nor a philistine. I have decided to Weak Oppose this motto. Besides the arcane phrasing, the links don't seem to be appropriate to the message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Looking back at this comment and others, I've noticed that I tend to both get defensive and start using "big words" when I reply to or ask for clarification about Pjoef's mottos. I think I'm you're giving me some kind of inferiority complex here, Pjoef...  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

→ More than working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. You can help!

Taken from Wikipedia:About. This page is running dry again, so I added two mottos this Monday, and I hope they are good enough. Have a wonderful week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It's not bad, and inspirational in its way. I'm just not sure I can get 100% behind a motto that is essentially a list of stastics. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

→ The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one.

I found the quote kind of interesting, but I'm not too sure about the links. Chamal ^talk 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: it's ok! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support with Suggestion - It's not bad, but the links don't seem to fit well. What about "The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one."? Those links would have my strong support- they highlight an important area of the Wiki in a way that fits with the wording and original context of the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

→ The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one.

Edit 1 per Slow News Day, aka MOTD Editor in Chief, and/or Nutiketaiel, and/or Jim. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support - There really isn't much left to say without making this sound suspiciously like bribery...and/or sockpuppetry. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - To clarify, this is not strong support for the motto since some users have asked me not to support my own suggestions (even though, if I were to do so, this motto would have my strong support). This is actually Strong Support of La Pianista's decision to promote me to Editor-in-Chief. This is a proud day for me, my fellow editors. Long have I lusted for power desired to serve my empire the community better by being in a position of authority. Now that MotD is under my jurisdiction, there are going to be sweeping changes. To start with, I'm promoting La Pianista to Demigod, Empress, Queen, First Lady and Administrator-for-Life and awarding her 2 of every Barnstar. Pjoef's is hereby promoted to Minister of Culture and Literature, but quotes are now limited to sources written after 1900 CE. Chamal is hereby promoted to Minister of Film and Grand Duke of Film Quotes; I further decree that mistakenly refering to Chamal as the wrong gender is punishable by the Death of a Thousand Edits. Simply South and Queenie are promoted to my co-Prime Ministers, and are responsible for all the actual work done in my dominion (of course, they do most of it anyway). Juliancolton is promoted to Minister of Creative Veterinary Science, Technology and Culture, and is responsible for the health and grooming of all felines in our realm. The second Thursday of every month is declared to be "Slow News Day." Everyone gets a flying car. The term "consensus" shall be redefined to mean "the Mercurial Whims of Fate." Every Wednesday is "Free Ice Cream Day." The talk page shall be redesigned to include continuous screenings of any movie that Chamal has put a quote up from. Every Sunday, the motto of the day shall be "All Praise to Our Glorious God-Emperor and Editor-in-Chief, and may he live forever." ... I think that about covers the basics. I'm going to go find some attractive women to feed me grapes, and maybe go put in an RfA based on my newly acquired power here. La Pianista's in charge until I get back. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

→ For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,
we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken;
you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Yet another inauguration excerpt. Not too sure about this one, though. The NPA link is kinda of deep. Simon^KSK 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - minor suggestion, really. What would you think of changing "advance their aims" to "advance their aims", with "advance" included in the link? I would also recommend that these longer mottoes be put further down the calendar - it's time for some short ones now. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• People who are POV-pushers are not necessarily vandals. WP:POINT also is not necessarily vandalism. But the second link makes more sense I guess, though it's not perfect. So, Weak Support if link suggested by La Pianista is added, plus Nutiketaiel has a point too. Chamal ^talk 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - A little... melodramatic... isn't it? Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, upon further thought, per Nutiket and Chamal. A bit too "doomy." —La Pianista ^(T•C) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose! Uhmmm ... was he talking about mass media? I'm sorry, but I really don't like this one. IMHO, this was the worst part of his inaugural speech. peACE –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - no consensus. Queenie ^Talk 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe the first two links should be WP:Criticisms and WP:About. SAVIOR_SELF.777 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I considered that, but I prefer the mainspace links in this case. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support, of Conditional support really. the links need to be changed a little, I think. --Kfc18645 talk 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How about → Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player. If you have a problem with referring to RfA as a "game," tell me. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I generally like the idea, but I'm not really comfortable referring to adminship as a "game". I suppose it can't hurt to try, however. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What about changing the wlink for Mistakes to point to WP:NCH (Wikipedia:New contributors' help page)??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • That could work, though, frankly, I think Edit 1 is better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.

Edit 1 at the suggestion of La Pianista. I'm not sure about referring to adminship as a game, but we'll see what everybody else thinks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me; nothing like encouraging people to "try, try again," as the old saying goes. I wasn;t that comfortable with the original link for "Mistakes" anyway. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am really not conformable with the fact that this motto calls RfA a game. Simon^KSK 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Aww, c'mon, it's just a little poetic license. Besides, you shouldn't take Admins so seriously. I know I don't. Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply - I know that admins are no big deal. It's just there are many people in Wikipedia who do. Simon^KSK 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply - Well, if there are many people on Wikipedia who think that Admins are a big deal, all the more reason to approve this motto to help them to stop thinking of Admins as such a big deal. Like the kitty cat said. Kitty cats are wise and powerful. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose! I'm sorry, but I don't like the links used in this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.

Edit 2 - maybe this can work. At least, if FA isn't hackneyed already. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, though not as much support as for edit 1 - This version is good and the links fit. I do think Edit 1 is better, but since that seems unlikely to pass because of everyone's reverence for Admins and failure to obey the dictates of the LOLcat, I offer my support to La Pianista's alternative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened all - no consensus. Simply south is this a buffet? 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

→ I'll be back.

Not the most interesting one, I guess. Chamal ^talk 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose bland. Simply south is this a buffet? 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - It IS bland, but everybody's been clamoring for short mottos lately, so it kind of fits what we're looking for, and it is good to remind people of the health sustaining benefits of the Wikibreak... Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Everyone is not clamoring. And yes, this motto is a bit meh. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologetic Statement - Sorry, I didn't mean to be so sweeping in my assumptions. I'll rephrase (changes italicized). "...but many individuals, such as La Pianista, have been clamoring for short mottos lately..." Does that work better, my dear?  :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Even Einstein asked questions.

α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - we need links to the Wikipedia namespace. How about, "Even Einstein asked questions? Simon^KSK 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like linking "Einstein" to Wikipedians. How about we just link the whole thing to WP:ASK? Chamal ^talk 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be more suitable as Even Einstein asked questions. Simply south is this a buffet? 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't that make it sound like Einstein used the Wikipedia RefDesk? Chamal ^talk 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - I'm sure he would have, had it been available to him.  :-) In seriousness, I support Chamal's idea of linking the entire quote to WP:ASK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Even Einstein asked questions.

Per Chamal. Simon^KSK 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per Chamal. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support: good link and intriguing motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

→ WikipediA: Infinite riches in a little room.

Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593), The Jew of Malta, Act I (1589) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support interesting. Why the A at the start? Simply south not SS, sorry 11:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A typo? I'm kidding (^___^). I lIkE tO uSe tHe cApItAl lEtTeR "A" iN tHe wOrD "WikipediA". It's in the WikipediA logo at the top left of each page. I piped it! SoRrY (^_^)! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I like the quote, but I don't like the "little room" link to Knowledge. It doesn't seem to fit. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggested links: "Wikipedia: infinite riches in a little room". I suppose it's kind of stating the obvious, but the link to knowledge in the original version doesn't seem to fit. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd support Julian's links, although this wiki is anything but a small room. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Re2Juliancolton: I thought it was clear and that there was no need to explain it. Well, that link is related to the humyn knowledge because it's little good. Think to Physics and the theory of relativity, or to Quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. Also, think to Psychology, the mind and the function of a brain, the deep-sea animals, the universe and the infinite, gods and goddesses, diseases... it's an infinite list. We all really know nothing or just a little part of the whole. But, WikipediA can help with its infinite riches in a little room. I think it is good as it is, simply and to the point. Anyway, it's just my humble opinion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I feel like i am quibbling over a minor point but why is there a capital A there? Was that in the original quote? Simplysouthisthisabuffet? 16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Re2Simply south: WikipediA??? in 1590??? I added it (and with the CAPITAL A). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Question - I don't get it. I had assumed that it was a typo. What does the capital "A" mean? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Reply: The logo at the top left that links to the main page -- it reads WikipediA. Pjoef said that already ^_^ Queenie ^Talk 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Its weird, when i made the second A comment, some of the text was missing (even though it doesn't seem to show this in the history). So can i retract my comment? Simplysouth is this a buffet? 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
                • ReplyI missed it because I have trained myself not to see text that looks lIkE tHiS. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what the logo says, it's called "Wikipedia", without the bizarre and arbitrary capitalization. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 Reopened - needs more discussion. Queenie ^Talk 17:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Love the first two links, but how is Knowledge=Little room? Icy // ♫ 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Re2Icy: everything is less than infinite (excluding infinite to the power of infinite to the power of infinite ...), so everything is scarce, and humYn knowledge is certainly finite and comparable to a vErY lItTlE rOoM (^__^). This is an issue that belongs to philosophy, mathematics, logic, physics, theology, etcetera, etcetera. Our knowledge is not a small room but a cupboard or just a small memory box, because it is very poor. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Then, on those grounds, I change my vote to Strong Oppose. I can't bring myself to support a motto that denigrates the vastness of human achievement and human potential in this manner. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Hi, I'm Ed Winchester!

Why do i have this feeling i have tried this? If not, a common sketch where a news reporter (not always the same person) turned up in different locations announcing this, then most times it would move onto another sketch. I am also wondering whether for the second link it could use a specials page but i have forgotten which one it is (if e1 done, log for new users). Simply south is this a buffet? 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It looks good to me. Always nice to remind people about the welcoming committee. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - A bit bland, but I agree with Nutiketaiel. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - No complaints, not that meh. —La Pianista ^{Speak · Hear} 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

→ Ambition is our idol, on whose wings
Great minds are carried only to extreme;
To be sublimely great, or to be nothing.

Thomas Southerne (1660 - May 22, 1746), The Loyal Brother, Act I, Scene i (1682) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but the last two links bother me. It implies that there are only two choices- to become a featured article, or to be deleted. Many articles are just fine hanging out at the GA level. I'm not sure I like the implication of an "all or nothing" there. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - how about changing the last two to sublimely great and nothing? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, but then that would repeat the "EDIAN" link. Never mind, sorry. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Nut. There's a heck of a lot between FA and AFD. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion - What about sublimely great and nothing? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Weak Support if Nutiketaiel's suggestion is implemented. It's still not the strongest message, though. Chamal ^talk 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Ambition is our idol, on whose wings
Great minds are carried only to extreme;
To be sublimely great, or to be nothing.

Edit 1- Thomas Southerne (1660 - May 22, 1746), The Loyal Brother, Act I, Scene i (1682); changed per my above suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The last two links may not be a strong message, Chamal, but I think the first link ("Ambition is our idol") is an excellent and important one to express. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I actually like the bit at the end. / La Pianista ^{Dolce, ma non troppo} 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Slightly Weak Support: These links are better. I find the part about how Wikipedians are carried to the extreme a bit weird though. The article thingy is OK, but the red link one seems to be out of place. I just can't put my finger on it :P Chamal ^talk 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

→ It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way...

I'm pretty happy with this one. It shows (among other things) the dichotomy of opinions that can exist about any facet of Wikipedia, between its supporters and detractors. I considered trying to find links for the best and worst of times, but I thought it stood better on its own. No need to link them; the rest of the quote has enough links to establish clear relevance, and the purpose of that first part is just set up anyway. I am also not 100% happy with the link for "Heaven," so if someone can think of a better suggestion, I'm all for it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As long as it is, this is an excellent motto. I agree that the link to "Heaven" is a bit weak, but I can't think of anything else. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent motto, but I agree that the link to "Heaven" is weak. I also would not advocate a link to WP:ADMIN or Special:Contributions, as these are equally weak. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 07:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Excellent. I would not advocate those links, either. Still can't think of anything better for "Heaven," though. Aside from Heaven, of course. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh you rascal! —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Moi? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Oui, tu, diablotin! —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Non!! Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Ah? Je vous adore, je vous adore... / La Pianista ^{Dolce, ma non troppo} 17:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. So glad you were happy with this one :). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It's extremly wordya nd may not look very good in tables, userboxes, ect.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Just because a motto is long doesn't mean it is inappropriate. Is it not a good message? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I like it, but it would be best if the link ti Heaven was removed and not replaced. Simon^KSK 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

→ To live with integrity in an unjust society we must work for justice. To walk with integrity through a landscape strewn with beer cans, we must stop and pick them up.

I'm not 100% satisfied with this set of links, though I think they work OK. I am open to further suggestions, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I really like this one. It's a bit long, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Witch's motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - we've had longer mottoes, and although I think it's time to put out some shorter ones, this one is exceptional. Well done. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.

Any better links? Chamal ^talk 13:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Not bad; the chosen link is adequate, though not great. How about WP:Talk Page, WP:TALK or WP:CONSENSUS? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Works for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• A plug to Editor review could go well here. iMatthew // talk // 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would think that WP:PR would be better. That project needs help. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. How about WP:SPOKEN? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.

Edit 1 - Per Pjoef, above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Pjoef's suggestion is perfect. A novel, clever link to a section of Wikipedia that doesn't get alot of attention. it has the added benefit of being hilarious. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.

Edit 2 per me. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral - Though it pains me to do so, Pianista, I maintain my support for Pjoef's suggestion (above). The link to WP:SPOKEN directs the user to an underutilized and underrated section of the Wiki that helps make it more accessible to everyone, and I think they deserve the attention. In addition, the WP:SPOKEN link fits slightly better with the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Live long and prosper

Mr Spock Simply southis this a buffet? 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support (assuming it hasn't been used before) - I'm fine with this one, if we haven't used it already. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - We shouldn't be associating edit count with experience or longevity on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - Why not? In general, people with a high edit count have been at Wikipedia for a long time. How does that not fit with "Live Long"? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, Nutiket, I've only been here for just over a year, and my contribs are around 19,000. I don't consider myself experienced - tools like Huggle exaggerate that. I also believe that that link can encourage WP:ITIS, if only subtly. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've never used huggle (or any other tool that matter) in the never-ending fight against vandalism; I just do it the old fashioned way- with my fists rollback button. I'll admit to not really understanding how such things work. Regardless, I don't think it is eroneous to draw the comparison. Incidentally, I have 2920 edits, and I do consider myself experienced. Not as experienced as some, but whatever. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Julian. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)