SOS Children's Villages

When placing mottos, please include them in the top of the In Review section instead of the bottom. Thank you.

In review

→ Don't fear the reaper.

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

• Comment: Won't it look like we are inviting people to be bold and create articles of unencyclopedic nature? Chamal ^Talk ± 13:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

→ To infinity and beyond!

It sounds like something that has been done before, but a quick search of the Motto of the Day archives yields nothing. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Man made the edits; edits never made the man.

I heard this (except with "money" instead of "edits) in an LL Cool J song. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Cool. I like it. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Support - The links are clever. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clever motto. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Good motto and cleverly linked. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Maybe you could re-direct Important to WP:ADMIN? And be nice to WP:wikipedians? Many people think that being an admin is extreemley important and etc etc, I'm not suggesting it isn't, but it is more important to be a productive member of our community. Whether you are an admin or not. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you when it comes to the first link. Many users strive to be an admin because they feel those users are per definition better. About the second suggestion, I'm not sure, since among Wikipedians are also the vandals and the anti-productive. Isn't there some essay on how normal users can be just as productive as admins or anyone else? BlackCat (Speak!) 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I really like this quote, as is. I do not support changing either link. I think they are fine the way they are. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
In
Knowledge
In
People
Easy
Daring
Informational
Art

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

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

Wikipedia
Inventive
Knowledgeable
Interesting
People
Easy
Daring
Informational
Art

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

• Weak Support - It's OK, I guess. Maybe good for a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

→ I know this crush ain’t going away.

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

• Support Cute. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK, I suppose, though I don't understand what "Crush" means in this context. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I agree with above, you would have to know the song to understand it fully, but it seems fine. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Support Fantastique, very nice. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very humerous. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great idea. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

→ I fly like paper, get high like planes.

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

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

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

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

• Support - This one is pretty funny, and the links make sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we trying to encourage sending an article to AFD just because it's a stub? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

→ We are family… I got all my sisters with me

A motto that's centered around Wikipedia Sister projects. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sure. Why not? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Not bad. It's always nice to bring attention to the other projects. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:WTHN. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - smashing turtles, every day

An anonymous scientist once gave a lecture on the sum of human astronomical knowledge. The following dialogue then ensued: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist then quipped: "What is the tortoise standing on?" The lady replied: "You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!" What that means, from my point of view, is that we'll never really understand what is going on in the universe, and that infinite regression will prevent us from ever attaining true knowledge. I think that what we are doing on Wikipedia is smashing those turtles, one by one, as we bring knowledge to the world, removing the barriers between mankind and the truth. I understand if people think it is too obscure, but I thought it was quite a philosophical approach that would give readers something to think about. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support A very clever motto, indeed; it made me stop and think for a bit. The links aren't all that relevant to Wikipedia, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We could change the "Wikipedia" link to go to "Wikipedia:About". —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support with the recomended change to the Wikipedia link. I've seen that dialogue before, and I love it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Suport That's deep. I love it! - BlackCat (Speak!) 11:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Few Mistakes Fix Themselves

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

• Comment. What about if you changed it to "Few Mistakes Fix Themselves", or something like that, so it'll be more related to Wikipedia? Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the link suggested by Artichoke Boy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can

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

• Oppose - Unclear relevance to Wikipedia. Try adding links. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: There was something similar, albeit Bob-the-Builder-based, in July 2007: "Can you edit? Yes you can!" --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

→ More Ovaltine, please!

I was drinking Ovaltine. Also the slogan for Ovaltine. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not much of a reference to Wikipedia, despite the link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Somewhat irrelevant. We don't necessarily want more edits, just good-quality ones. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Linked more toWP:BOLD. I don't know if this will work, but I hope it will. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nah, still don't like it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Permanent markers almost never makes a permanent marking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I don't really get it. Somewhat bland, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Weak Support - It's OK, I guess. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Not the best, not the worst... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.

--LAAFan^sign _review 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I like it, but the WP:FA link should only be attached to the word "great," not the word "nothing," IMHO. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

To be bold…or not to be bold?

This one's about the concept of boldness in Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good enough for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Absolutely hilarious, and the second link makes a very good point. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Fresh, funny. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar

A motto about how to treat new users. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Very nicely done, I can't possibly think of anything to discredit this. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 20:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Aside from the fact that it's not technically true (look it up!), I like it. Trvsdrlng (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks very good to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Nice idea. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I like it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice philosophy. I like. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

→Recycling: Are you doing your bit?

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

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

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

Actions are louder than words

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

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

Actions speak louder than words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia. It speeds up. Exciting to touch. Happy is the day when backache goes away.

• Motto found on a shirt, modified a little. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Talks about Wikipedia's growth into a featured article. I like it. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose--LAAFan^sign _review 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I guess I like the sentiment and the links, but the quote is really kind of wierd. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: As Nutiketaiel said, the idea is OK but the motto is weird. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never heard it, and it seems extremely weird. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - would be quite confusing to the MOTD readers. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak support Like the quote but should change Thrice into whatever four or five is. Is four Quadice or Quadrice? Just wondering. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There isn't anything for four five etc etc, you simply say 'four times' 'five times'... Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's OK. Not great. Maybe on a slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

If you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life.

A little quote I came up with about loving what you do on Wikipedia. I believe someone famous said this line, but I can't put my finger on it. If anyone knows who he/she, tell me and I'll arrow-link the person. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I like the quote, but not the last link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

If you love what you do, you will never work another day in your life.

Another version. Slightly adjusted by re-wording "a" to "another". Kudos to Artichoke-Boy. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I like this one, but I'm unsure of the last link •xytram•tkcsgy 08:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I guess this is a slight improvement over the first, but I still don't like the last link. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Good one, but the last link needs to be improved. How can Wikipedia be 'life'? La Alquimista 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Erased link to your life. Hope it clears thing up. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Better like this. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be or not to be, that is the question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In some cases…less is more!

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

• Weak oppose Nothing wrong with it per se, but it's not very interesting... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It doesn't say much, but it might be passable ona slow news day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Up, up and away!

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

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

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

• Strong Oppose - We should not be reusing quotes until one of them is reproduced by a room full of monkeys. Nutiketaiel (talk)

Wikipediholism...face it, it's better than alcoholism!

Kinda cheesy...but yeah... ~ Her Holy Jamoley Highness Rebel Queen Pokeynut 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No links, and yeah, kinda cheesy. Also, please place new noms on the top of the page, rather than at the bottom. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 23:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Corny. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Corny and cheesy, indeed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All's fair in love and war

Surprised this hasn't been used before. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All's fair in love and war

Edit 2 Other links. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - If it truly hasn't been used before. Not a big fan, though; too cliché. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Which side are you on? The editors or the vandals?

I made it shorter--Spittlespat (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - It presents the vandals as a legitimate side, it links to pages that don't reflect the Wikipedia meaning of the terms, and it probably shouldn't be up here in the special nomination section. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved appropriately. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - I guess it's all right, but it seems just a repetition of the famous black-and-white image (I'm sure everyone's seen it?) —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This one: (click for larger view). —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Never seen that image before. I still don't like the quote, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose People don't have a choice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Nutiketaiel. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Edit fresh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak support - The word "help" at the beginning makes it a bit redundant, but other than that, it is a fine motto. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 23:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and before "remove the bad". I would fully support as: "Improve the good or remove the bad... either way, you're helping!" --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I support it as is, but if the only way to reach consensus is to remove the first two "help"s, then I'll support that, too. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

→ Veni, vidi, vici

Translates to I came, I saw, and I conquered    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: See Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/Frequently_used_ideas. Secondly, when it says place this at the top of the section, do not place it at the bottom. Simply south (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Find something more original. I have also taken the liberty of removing the other two repititions of this same motto, as they are exactly the same; I assume they were added by accident. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

→ Something tells me I'm into something good

Simply south (talk)

Or alternatively

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

→ Something tells me I'm into something good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - I still don't like it. It never bothered me that it referenced America; I just didn't like the links and I didn;t like the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I suppose it is better like this - still a great motto thought and the links are very relevant Machete97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this whole quote doesn't say the things good about Wikipedia as of the last part of the quote. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((see template below))

Based on some of the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace#Expansion requests. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 18:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I don't think everyone would like to see a template placed on their userpage requesting them to add mottos, particularly since we are just another Wikiproject. People will decide whether they want mottos on their pages or not. It's just like ads, isn't it; some people like it some people don't. I might change my vote if someone can convince me though. Chamal ^Talk ± 04:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1

Per Chamal's concern, here is a non-motto-based alternative. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jealous support because I was planning on doing a template motto sometime soon. Darn it! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Yeah, that's good. But will this work for all the MOTD templates? I mean, will it appear ok? Chamal ^Talk ± 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Clever, though I don't know if everybody wants this template on their talk page/userpage/wherever they have {{Motd}}. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: We have done template mottos previously, and as long as they aren't too obtrusive, they generally go along ok. As for the display concerns, this should work just fine in the standard templates ({{motd}}, {{motd bold}}, {{motd plain}}, {{motd big}}) but may have an extra-thick border in {{motd cquote}} (102 transclusions) and {{User:Cremepuff222/RandomMotto}} (9 transclusions), and it probably will make {{User:DannyQuack/Userboxes/Motto}} (121 transclusions) explode. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I can't say I really like the idea of a template motto, but it IS a refreshing change of pace... Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Very original, and I like how it's raising awareness about Wikipedia contributions! I had a motto idea very similar to this one, too. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanted: Dead or Alive

A reference to ideas that are most wanted to become articles on Wikipedia. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It is clever, but I don't think we should be encouraging the creation of stubs instead of proper articles. Though, I suppose a stub IS better than nothing... Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really the whole point of the motto. It's better a stub than NOTHING, because at least we would HAVE an article. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support I just don't like referring to Stubs as 'dead'! •xytram•tkcsgy 12:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Out with the old, In with the new

Simply south (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Not bad, but I'm not sure that "recent additions" should be labeled as the "old." Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support; it is a good motto, but other links may be more fitting. How about Help:Archiving a talk page and the recent changes for talk pages? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support;I think this is a bit too plain jane. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Needs new links. Jordan ^Contribs 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Out with the old, in with the new

How about this? Simply south (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support not bad, trying to think of some good links...spider1224 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• What about changing the link for "Out with the old" to Category:Banned Wikipedia users. iMatthew (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support A bit better. Jordan ^Contribs 12:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I don't know, I'm still kind of ambivilent (did I spell that right?) about the first link. Second link is good, though. I guess I'm not sure that "out with the old" is the proper sentiment for Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Another link suggestion: Help:Page history and Special:Recentchanges --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

2 Out with the old, In with the new

Possibly better (withouth the 2). Simply south (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I don't know, and maybe its just me, but I still don't feel all that great about "out with the old" as a motto for Wikipedia. It doesn't sit well. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

→ Expect the unexpected.

The motto for Big Brother. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Has this been done before? It is such a famous saying that it probably has. Otherwise, congratulations on being the first to come up with it. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Nothing wrong with it. Just seems like a weak quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Creative...spider1224 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not what Wikipedia can do for you; it is what you can do for Wikipedia.

The origin from this motto was, as you probably guessed, John Kennedy inagural speech. I hope this hasn't been used before; although it probably has been. Kimu 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make it historically accurate, shouldn't it be "Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note, original edit 1 was rejected. See here. Simply south (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC) (Relisted again at 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

• Weak Support It's OK, I guess, if we have a slow news day, provided it is re-written for historical accuracy as described above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

→ You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

It was a quote from the movie The Dark Knight and was quoted by Harvey Dent. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 05:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Change spelling of "villian" to "villain". A bit fatalistic. Thinking about whether or not I like it -- why not live and remain a hero? ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the villain problem. At first, I thought it was clever but now, I really don't know what it means. I hope someone would figure it out. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably isn't much better, but I've got a mildly humorous edit 1 below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC) and again 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

→ You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

*whistles innocently* Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think its refreshing that vandals are not the villain again. So for that alone I think I prefer this version, but i support both.--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I rather like this version. The new villains link is much more humerous than the last one, and it does not depressingly suggest an inexorable slide into vandalism. Would be nice if the sentence ended in a period, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

→ Experienced Leadership, Bold Solutions

Based on one of McCain's campaign slogans. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm not a big McCain fan, but it does make for a pretty good motto. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not giving away whether I'm a democrat or a republican, but I do think this quote for Wikipedia has a nice message and is catchy. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need no fool's control.

Origin from the song The Wall by Pink Floyd. LAAFan 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I'm not sure I understand the reference; what is "fool's control" in the original context of the song? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The original lyrics are "We don't need no education, we don't need no fools control". The fools being teachers. Loosely meaning that we don't require a forced education or a higher authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xytram (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Well, that makes a little more sense, I guess. Change my standing to Weak Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - Good song, good motto, weak links. I think instead of linking to Don't feed the trolls either WP:BURO or WP:IAR would be a better fit with the song's meaning plus the current links could be read to imply that we can be out of control and act like trolls if we want to, though I'm sure that's not the intention. Stardust8212 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Which side will you choose?

Saw the comment about needing nominations, so here I am. Sorry if it's already been done before. LAAFan 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What if users choose the vandal side? It might encourage users to be vandals. Maybe something could be altered in the motto? -- RyRy (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I am loathe to oppose this one because it is clever, and I like the double link, but I have to agree with RyRy. Perhaps if the other side was altered somehow... I think I could get behind it if you changed the Vandal link to a link to something like Criticism of Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1 of "Which side will you choose?"

Edit 1. Changed the "si" link from WP:Vandal to Criticism of Wikipedia. I think it gets the point across better, is equally clever, and less likely to present Vandalism as a legitimate "side" (whereas Criticisms of Wikipedia, while unfounded, are a legitimate position). Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - That's right, I support me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Doesn't this make it look like we don't like criticism? It looks to me like "either you join us, or you get out of our way". I won't vote on this yet. Chamal ^Talk 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's neutral on whether we "like" the criticism or not. However, there are definitely two sides to the debate; just because we recognize the sides doesn't mean we want the other side to "join us or get out of the way." Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Commentwouldnt it be better if there were links to deletionism and inclusionism ? i dont quite see the "sides" otherwise Machete97 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• weak oppose - I agree with Chamal's concerns. Stardust8212 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support if it were linked to deletionism and inclusionism, per Machete97. Much fresher than Wikipedians vs. Vandals all the time... —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Answer to Anything and Everything!

This motto is saying that Wikipedia has the information to anything you can think of. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it doesn't nor will it, have the answer to anything and everything. Deamon138 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support As an Inclusionist, I am fine with the idea of Wikipedia being the answer to everything. The only reason I am putting in "weak" support is because it seems like there could be a more clever way to say it... Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support As per the above comment by Nutiketaiel. I'm an Inclusionist too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Answer to Anything and Everything?

• Edit 1 I have changed it to a question rather than a statement and relinked it to WP:BOLD and YFA. It could potentially have an answer to anything but only with bold edits. Sorry I'm probably grasping at straws here! •xytram•tkcsgy 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Seems too... wishy washy. I liked the first version better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

→ Red: The Bad Color

This is a fictional philosophy in the 2004 film, The Village. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Kind of an obscure rederence. Still, it's clever. I kind of like it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I'm sorry but red is my favourite colour. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe that's referring to red links, not saying that red itself is bad... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with red links. Kolindigo (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How can there be nothing wrong with red links? I don't understand; that means that we're missing an article somewhere, or that somebody misspelled their link. Either way, a red link is a problem to be fixed. Red links are the enemy!  ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Let's kill the enemy then :) Chamal ^Talk ± 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• After further consideration, I think I like it a little bit more now. I change my stance to Strong Support. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

→ A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.

A Theodore Roosevelt quote. --88wolfmaster (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Nutiketaiel. Kolindigo (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

→Danger! Inhibition astraddle transgress.

~AH1^(TCU) 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this related to Chinglish? and what does "Inhibition astraddle transgress" mean? -- K. Annoyomous24 03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I just don't get the reference. I guess it's one of those "all your base are belong to us" style mistranslations, but I've never heard of this one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think this will be comprehensible to everyone. We shouldn't have anything like that as a motto . Chamal ^Talk ± 12:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, throw it out there

Reflects Wikipedia's open philosophy/be bold. Based on the recycling-related motto "When in doubt, throw it out." CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if people won't get the wrong impression by seeing "throw it out" and associating it with deleting articles, as opposed to being bold. —T-borg (T | C) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I like the sentiment, but please see edit 1 below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 04:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, throw it out there

Edit 1 - When in doubt, throw it out to an open discussion to form a consensus (part of which involves being bold, but this is a bit more broad). After all, that's how things get done around here, right? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 04:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - The edit by Hersfold is definitely better than the original, but I think it was kind of a weak quote in the first place. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Step by step. Hand in hand.

Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: kinda unclear relation to Wikipedia. —T-borg (T | C) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support, I get it. Wikipedia is a cooperative project. Progress gets made in steps (WP:BOLD), but things actually get done by working with others hand in hand (WP:CON). Maybe adding those links would help, but this is good as is, I think. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Note: See my comment below as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Good quote, sends an excellent message. Links would be nice, but not strictly necessary. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support ...but it needs a couple of wlinks. (e.g. "Step by step. Hand in hand.") –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it'd be better as "Hand in hand.". I don't get why the Main Page is linked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support for the revisions recommended by Hersfold. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great, especially Hersfold's linked version. Strong Support. Malpass93 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Good good edit, day day up.

~AH1^(TCU) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose What? Gibberish--Jac16888 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment— Hmm, appears to be some form of Chinglish, as shown in the arrow link. Seems kinda stereotypical. I'd say oppose. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Good good study, day day up" is a quite famous Chinglish saying. It's the literal translation of the Chinese sentence for "Study hard and improve every day." --EinsteiNewton 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

→ Good good edit, day day up.

Edit 1, suggestion. --EinsteiNewton 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support- That's more like it. :) --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Maybe it's just me, but it just doesn't seem to make sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too obscure, imho. Kolindigo (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention to your teacher and learn all you can

It just explains you should always listen to your adopter and keep learning from them. I'm just not sure where the link should lead to clarify "teacher". I'm also thinking in adding "teacher/coach" in if necessary to also mention admin coaching. Regards, RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - it sounds a bit harsh. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I like the message, actually, and I think it would serve to promote the adoption program. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like it. Nothing wrong with it, and it's true. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I contain multitudes

I contradict myself? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. What? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support It is from Song of Myslef by Walt Whitman

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

To be reopened - not enough discussion. Simply south (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Nonsensical. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, no, I take that back. Support if we add links. Try this on for size- I contain multitudes. or I contain multitudes. I think one of those may be closer to what the author was trying to say. What do you guys think? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I contain multitudes

Edit 1. I added the links, which I think explain the motto and get the point across more firmly. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes.

Edit 2 How about Kolindigo (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I prefer this edit •xytram•tkcsgy 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If this is accepted, I would suggest a comma after "well." —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply I agree that there should be a comma there. I left it out because there is no comma in the original source. Kolindigo (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wikilove you. Don't you wikilove me?

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

• Oppose Bland. (Besides, WikiLove is a noun, not a verb ;)) •97198 talk 05:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Sounds kinda awkward. Perhaps cut "wikilove" to just "love"? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I love you. Don't you love me?

• How about this? •xytram•tkcsgy 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Better with the new link structure. I support as is, but I think it would be even better if the first link was maybe to WP:KC. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really a good "motto" for Wikipedia. iMatthew (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)