![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/40px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png) | This is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page. |
John Dryden (1631–1700), Prologue to
Lee's Caesar Borgia
[I think]
HE is talking about himself,
Nathaniel Lee, and other poets and playwrigths!
Oh to be so unhappy!!!!–
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
06:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 08:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1. I know some people may not support due to the changing of the actual quote... should I still credit it to John Dryden?
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Each person has his/her reason to enjoy life, right?
Timlight (
talk)
17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Short and straight to the point. Edit 1
Simply south (
talk)
21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - not enough discussion.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
William Shakespeare (1564–1616),
Henry IV, Part II, Act I, Scene iii (1600) –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
06:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The quote is very appropriate, and the links range from excellent to passable. Nice contribution.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I'm quite liking this one, it reflectes how articles grow nicely
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The quote seems appropriate and the links do, too.
Math
Cool
10
Sign here!
22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Would anyone else see
WP:PR as an alternative to the last one (currently
WP:FAC)? —
La Pianista
♫
♪
05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - That suggestion would certainly work, though I really don't see anything wrong with the quote as currently linked.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, my logic is this. FAC is used rather as an assessment of whether an article is FA-class. It's like an article's "audition," so to speak. A PR simply lists the pros and cons of an article, which, in my opinion, would be a better interpretation of "rating the cost." —
La Pianista
♫
♪
04:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This one's bland and kind of dumb I guess, but still...
Chamal
talk
15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
From the
sixth book of
Robert Jordan's
Wheel of Time series, from the
voice inside
Rand's head. Nice and simple, and fairly self explanatory.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps it could be split into several sub-links.
Wikiert
T
S
C
18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support: I'd say leave it as it is, its perfect, asumming good faith is very important, and the simplicity of this motto is all thats needed to drive home the point, any more links and the point will just drown
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as it is. It gets the message through strongly without beating around the bush.
I likez.
Chamal
talk
12:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Nice one. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ~ very good! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
07:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support. A good, simple motto.
Artichoke-Boy (
talk)
20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From the
third book of
Robert Jordan's
Wheel of Time series, from the character Leane Sharif. I'm not 100% comfortable with equating Admins with Leaders (which of course they are not), but I think it is OK in the context of the larger point.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From the
third book of
Robert Jordan's
Wheel of Time series, from the character
Mat Cauthon. Mat's always a great source for quotes. I almost went with
WP:SOCK for the second link, but I thought
WP:TAGTEAM got the point across better (
after all, not all socks are used for evil). The motto is mostly a general warning about some of the harmful practices that should be avoided on Wikipedia, like gaming the system with tag teams or forming cliques.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was not my opinion on the matter, which would take several volumes... I tried to balance it out, and I was kidding too. I know that there is nothing to laugh about, and I agree with you completely. I'm sorry. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's OK, I over-reacted to your response. Please accept my apology for not being entirely
civil in my response to you.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks :) NO problem ... NO need to apologize! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus, ignoring Wikiert's second vote.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From the
second book of
Robert Jordan's
Wheel of Time series, from the character
Mat Cauthon. Not a bad little quote, I feel, reminding us to be on the lookout for one of the most harmful practices of vandals and other Wikinogoodniks- inserting fake references to assert notability or cover a false article or statement. I know some of us don't like repetition, but it kind of drives the point home in this one. In case it wasn't clear, I've been in a very Wheel of Timey mood lately, so there will probably be a few more of these mottos.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Sure, looks good. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ~ You have convinced me!
Neutral: I'm an
inclusionist. I think that all humYn knowledge, which is very poor, must be included in WikipediA. I'm sorry, but I can not support this one. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs) 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I, too, am an inclusionist, but some things fail notability even by my standards. That's not to say that such information shouldn't be included on Wikipedia, just that some things don't need their own articles. I think we can all agree that false references are bad, though.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the monkey....
Simply south (
talk)
11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
-
I ain't gettin' too close to one of them pigs... –
Juliancolton |
Talk
15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- lol – check out
this one if you haven't before (^___^). –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From the
first book of
Robert Jordan's
Wheel of Time series, from the character
Thom Merrilin. I think it's a pretty good quote that applies well to Wikipedia. I'm not 100% satisfied with the "
other fools" link, so I'm definitely open to suggestions on that one.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
William Shakespeare (1564–1616),
King Richard III, Act V, Scene iv (1623) –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
08:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I likez.... oh noes!
I likez vialashun! Ok, so it shows how important it is, and the repetition helps to deliver the point more strongly. Something like
WP:CLEANUP would also be good (but fine as it is though).
Chamal
talk
10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Well, I am usually OK with repitition to drive a point home, but this one is pretty dry... oh, and I took the liberty of capitalizing the second "A".
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I disagree with our esteemed leader on this (may he live forever, may his name forever ring in our halls, etc etc), and I have to agree with Chamal that in this case the repetition works well
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - It's alright, but the repetition dries it up. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
→ All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the
present but neither see nor feel those of the
future; and hence we often make
troublesome changes without
amendment, and
frequently for the worse.
Once more. --
The New
Mikemoral
♪♫
20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think this has potential, but I'm slightly confused. How does us (in relation to) the "future"/new members have to do with us vandalizing/deleting pages and the deletion policy?
Icy //
♫
22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: The motto is good, but the links are confusing. It makes vandalism sound like test edits because of the phrase without amendments. Also, the delete link makes it look like we vandalize articles and then delete them. I'll try to think of some better links, or someone else probably will.
Chamal
talk
10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but I can't think of any set of links that would adequately tie it to Wikipedia without either contradicting itself or being very very confusing.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
How about this? --
The New
Mikemoral
♪♫
02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Chamal's statement above regarding the problems with the linking in this phrase, but I can't think of any better links. I'll try, though.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - per consensus or no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
→ Everybody likes a
kidder, but nobody lends him
money
Well, I thought I’d give MOTD one more try. So here’s a quote from
Arthur Miller. --
The New
Mikemoral
♪♫
04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Ah, but nobody likes a vandal, so that statement is contradictory.
Simon
KSK
17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional Support – I like the quote and I'm a fan of Arthur, one of the greatest playwrights of all time, but I do not like the link for kidder because nobody likes vandals and vandalism (excluding vandals, of course).
What about using:
WP:BJAODN,
WP:BALLS,
WP:FUN,
WP:LAME, or
WP:STUPID for it??? –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Not many like a
kidder, but nobody lends him
money
Perhaps now. --
The New
Mikemoral
♪♫
17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still oppose - If you say "No, but", it basically means "Yes". The motto doesn't make much sense. Either way, it's bland. Sorry.
Simon
KSK
17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – (IMHO) It has no value if we do not use the original quote. A better version, which I do NOT support (^__^), is: Nobody likes a kidder and lends him money. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
Not many like a
kidder, therefore nobody lends him
money.
Now? --
MikemoralSock (
talk)
17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: It's kind of meh, and it makes it look as if the rest of us are working for awards. I have to agree with Soccer5525 on this one. Sorry.
Chamal
talk
02:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined all per consensus or no consensus,
Reopened e3.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
And now for something completely different. I was going for a reminder to everyone that being an Admin is not a big deal and that, really, they're all editors just like us. Well, not like
me, as your
God-Emperor and
Editor-in-Chief, and not like my Empress and Demigod, La Pianista, but like the rest of you. :-) Anyway, I know some of you are going to have a problem with the profanity, but it really is relatively mild compared to some of the past proposals including profanity that have been shot down, and I think that tiny bit of profanity will itself serve as a reminder to everyone that
we are not censored. Thoughts?
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support- I chuckled when I read this. I absoulutely love Monty Python! And I totally agree with you about your feelings towards admins and profanity. I personally have no problem with the quote including shit, and it makes it more funny! --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - lulzy, in true Nutiket fashion. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - I like the idea, but the second link doesn't make much sense. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support: As Julian said, the second link doesn't make much sense the way it is given, but supporting the idea.
Chamal
talk
02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I was intending it to be a demonstration that Adminship is not a big deal by pointing out that that is how you recognize an Admin. Kind of like how most of the peasants (especially the Anarcho-Syndicatalist ones) don't seem to think Arthur's Kingship is a big deal.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment When did you change the second link? I liked it much better before! --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: lol good one! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've always maintained that a break is in order once people start to get angry at each other on wikipedia
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
09:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Declined per edit 1.
Simply south (
talk)
19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 - Per my above suggestion. I think this one maintains the spirit of the original quote (that you can't think clearly when you're pissed off) without disparaging Wiki-breaks.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved edit 1 per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Another excerpt taken from
Wikipedia:About. The original text is:
Wikipedia, the
multilingual,
Web-based,
free-content
encyclopedia, a
collaborative project created by
volunteers from all around the world; anyone can edit it.
I tried to turn it into a motto, and I am not sure if it runs well. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
07:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - It's good, and I like that the links are all to the mainspace, since the quote was taken from the... wikipediaspace (or whatever you call it). I think the "voluntary" link would also be better off with a mainspace link, though, to keep the theme throughout. What about "
voluntary"? As for the last link, I don't think that
WP:TMM was a very inspired choice; why not link it directly to
Special:UserLogin/signup?
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: after 4 links I was a little bit tired (^__^) ... I'm not sure about your
Volunteerism, Nutiel, — may I call you Nutiel, or do you prefer Nuti? (^___^) — because there is little difference between them, but
Special:UserLogin/signup is perfect! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
08:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Given the option, I would prefer "Nuti" to "Nutiel." Thanks for asking. :-) I think the
Volunteerism link works because it both points out that participation is voluntary and, right in the first line of the
current version of the article says it all- "Volunteerism is the willingness of people to work on behalf of others without being motivated by financial or material gain." It seems to me that, in alot of ways, that's what Wikipedia is all about.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose What the point of having most of those links if they just redirect you to what the mean? The words in these quotes should have hidden meanings that have to do with Wikipedia. They're very redundant, and it's clear what the meaning is without the links. --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - There's nothing wrong with being straightforward every once in a while. Not everything has to be Easter Eggs.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a little fun. Maybe not very good.
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
→ I know a lot about
love. I've seen it, centuries and centuries of it, and it was the only thing that made
watching this
world bearable. All those
wars.
Pain, lies, hate... It made me want to
turn away and never look down again. But when I see the way that
mankind loves... You could search to the furthest reaches of the universe and never find anything more beautiful.
A nice soppy one, although, maybe it's... Well, vote as you see fit,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
04:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per weak consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
From the
fifth book of
Robert Jordan's
Wheel of Time series, from the character
Mat Cauthon. I almost made that last link to one of my favorites,
WP:NOBIGDEAL, but I thought this way was a little more original and a little more appropriate. What I'm trying to get across is that a person does not have to be an Admin to make great contributions to the Wiki, and that we should all have a little more respect for "ordinary" users and their contributions.
Nutiketaiel (
talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
14:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support! Yeah! Go non-admins!
Wikiert
T
S
C
18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: Whilst we should have more respect for ordinary users, we should not gain that respect by demeaning others, if you know, what I mean?
- Strong Oppose: I agree that adminship is no big deal, but the second link kind of degrades adminship (not saying that this is intentional, but that's how the link makes it look). There are plenty of good admins about that do a great job for Wikipedia. I know there are morons too, but a lot of people are doing a thankless job with everybody spotting their mistakes and nobody looking at the things they do to keep this place as it is, and I don't want to see them being put down.
Chamal
talk
12:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I'm not sure whether it was intentional or not. I've seen alot of blatant stupidity and reprehensible actions by Admins lately, so maybe I'm just inadvertantly expressing my disdain for all of them through motto form. I dunno.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- We have a
Sinhalese proverb that translates to something like cutting off your own nose to revenge yourself upon your face. We are part of the same '
community', and putting down part of it (intentionally or otherwise) will harm all of us. I suggest we think about that before we let our personal feelings overcome the realities here. After all, MOTD is about "fostering a sense of community" and our mottoes are supposed to "reflect the community or purpose of Wikipedia". In any case, a whole group is not responsible for something that a few of them have done.
Chamal
talk
13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; I like that. I didn't know that that saying originated in Sinhalese. Learn something new every day. In any case, the metaphor fits in alot of ways, actually, since I could cut off my nose and get by without too much trouble- I'd probably look a little funny, and I'd have to breath through my mouth, and I'd have no sense of smell, but with a few adjustments to my lifestyle I'd be fine. And if my nose acted like an Admin, I probably would cut it off. But, I digress. I hereby formally withdraw this motto, per Chamal's important and totally correct observations.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
14:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I didn't know that saying was known by a lot of people. Anyway, that was my honest opinion about this. No hard feelings, I hope :)
Chamal
talk
02:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, no hard feelings, though I was thinking about promoting you to Minister of Making Nutiket Feel Bad. :-P Seriously, you're right, and I never should have nominated the motto in the first place. I'll just keep my feelings about Admins bottled deep inside... untill they
EXPLODE! ;-)
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - withdrawn.
Simply south (
talk)
17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Simply south (
talk)
12:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: It sounds like you sit looking at your watchlist but thinking about something that might happen over at recent changes... I see the connection, but it seems weird when you say it like that. And did a
Stingray seriously say that? :P
Chamal
talk
12:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, i corrected that first link. It was a puppet series by Gerry Anderson. Like Thunderbirds. You could see what i was trying to get at but can you suggest ways to improve that? And Commander Shore says it at the start
Simply south (
talk)
13:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought so... :) I'm trying to think of some other links or a way to fix what I said, that's why I haven't supported or opposed yet.
Chamal
talk
13:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently there is "We are about to launch stingray" in between the two but i can't remember it like that, sort of.
Simply south (
talk)
13:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... how about
Wikipedia:Patrols for the first link, and either
Special:Watchlist or
Special:Recentchanges for the second?
Chamal
talk
14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done.
Simply south (
talk)
18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- And i do know of an admin who is a talking squid..
.
Simply south (
talk)
00:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Better links? Maybe change second link to
WP:REVERT?
Chamal
talk
06:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's what i was meaning.
Simply south (
talk)
10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Good 'nuff for me. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I am fine with the current version. However, if you guys insist on changing it to include
WP:ARTICLERESCUE, I suggest replacing the last link with
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and the first link to
WP:AFD. The quote would therefore read- "
→ When you're
on the Titanic and you're
manning the life boats, you don't stop to
yell at the iceberg." ... ... Hey, you know, that actually sounds pretty snappy now that I look at it. That set of links would have my Support, too. The original is still very good, though. I'm up for either; what do you guys think?
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: How about the removal of the first link? I'm feeling minimalist today. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support either this set of links or the ones Nutiket brought up. Pianista - I don't know - would work either way, maybe.
Icy //
♫
22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved original per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 per suggested overlord's addition of links of my suggestion.
Simply south (
talk)
12:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined in favour of original.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
→ Think like a man of
action,
act like a man of
thought.
Maybe. BW21.--
12hctawkcalB (
talk)
19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Confused Weak Support I'm not really sure what to say about this one...it's just sorta meh. Doesn't catch my eye or do anything for me. Maybe with some tweaking with the links and it'll be better. --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply If you're confused, oppose it. BW21.--
12hctawkcalB (
talk)
22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- What does "BW21" mean?
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's his old username, I think. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply 12hctawkcalB is my alternate account, my main account is
Blackwatch21 and BW21 is just something I put at the end of every message. BW21.--
12hctawkcalB (
talk)
00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Angry Mob Reply - I knew it! He's a
sock! Everybody hit him with sticks!
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Notice how the name is backwards of Blackwatch21!? BW21.--
12hctawkcalB (
talk)
03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. That's the evidence that you're not just an ordinary sock, but a sock from the evil
Mirror Universe, where everyone is evil and
Spock has a beard. Thus, we beat you with sticks. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. :-)
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per weak consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I do not like it in its current form- even with large numbers of edits, there will be vandalism (indeed, some of them will BE vandalism). I suggest linking "hard work" to
WP:CVU or
WP:RCP to more directly relate to the vandalism link.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Better? --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved edit 1 per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
My last CD-i motto fared better than I had expected, so here is another one. --
UberScienceNerd
Talk
Contributions
03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
→ Ab
ovo usque ad
mala
(“From the egg to the apples” or “From beginning to end”)
Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65 BC-8 BC),
Sermonum Liber primus, Satire 1.3, Omnibus hoc vitium est ("Everyone has this flaw") (35 BC). It is based on the Roman main meal typically beginning with an egg dish and ending with fruit, similar to the American English idiom "soup to nuts". It means "from beginning to end". The links are about the development od an article, from Stub to FA. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
08:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I really like this motto; it took me a while to create but I hope you guys like it as much as me! --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - but is that last link necessary? —
La Pianista
♫
♪
16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –
Juliancolton |
Talk
16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think the last link is nesscary because it's saying what the the barnstars are worth for --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I like it. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - I like the sentiment, but I'm not too keen on the idea that Barnstars are the only thing that make Wikipedia worth editing.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - On further reflection, I agree with La Pianista that the last link is unnecessary. If nothing else, that link serves to emphasize my concerne above. I strongly suggest removing it.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
-
Support but would rather have the link to barnstars replaced or removed, because that really isn't everything in between. Apart from that, I think it's a great motto.
Icy //
♫
20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, barnstars are rather nice, Icy - tokens of appreciation when used sparingly and meaningfully. I'd much rather
WP:BARN than the hackneyed
WP:EDIT. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that barnstars are great, and that that link would be better than linking to
WP:EDIT, but I just... Meh.
Icy //
♫
19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you icy when you said you would rather have the link to barnstars replaced (I have never recieved a barnstar *chortle* (of course, thats nothing to do with this)), I actually made an edit 2 (just below) to this vein, although, maybe you might not like it as I linked it to WP:community, rather then just WP:edit. Anyway,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose no offence, but, I just really really really don't like the link to Barnstars, its not reflective of what we "do" at wikipedia, otherwise its a good motto,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved original with no consensus on removal of the last link.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
→
Beginnings are usually scary and
endings are usually sad, but it's
everything in between that makes it all worth living.
Edit 1 per
The King and I. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No offence to your Anna or you, Nutiketaiel, but the link to barnstars just seems... well, It doesn't strike me to be reflective of what we "do" at wikipedia
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply No offense taken. See, the reason I think the link wo
Barnstars works is because they are awards for doing "what we 'do' at wikipedia" exceptionally well. The Barnstars aren't an end in and of themselves, but they are recognition for doing a great job at the various things we all come here to do, from editing articles to fighting vandalism to MotD. (Note- I knew I'd find a way to get this on the actual nom page. Everybody who wants in, there's discussion going on
here about a new update to the MotD Barnstar, comments appreciated).
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined in favour of original.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
→
Beginnings are usually scary and
endings are usually sad, but it's
everything in between that makes it all worth living.
Edit 2. This one is, in my opinion, the best option, per Icy,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
06:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined in favour of original.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
→
Beginnings are usually scary and
endings are usually sad, but it's
everything in between that makes it all worth living
Declined in favour of original.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
→
Beginnings are usually scary and
endings are usually sad, but it's
everything in between that makes it all worth living
Yes yes, we are getting another one, edit 4, but this i think explains things well - actually, should that be
WP:COLLAB or
WP:COLLABORATE?
Simply south (
talk)
13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined in favour of original.
Simply south (
talk)
14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've stopped it with the new ideas
Simply south (
talk)
10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - joke nomination.
Simply south (
talk)
19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet another new idea
Simply south (
talk)
09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - joke nomination.
Simply south (
talk)
19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
New idea
Simply south (
talk)
09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - joke nomination.
Simply south (
talk)
19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
New idea
Simply south (
talk)
09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined - joke nomination.
Simply south (
talk)
19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
President Barack Obama.
男らし
い冬
01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: by
WP:userpage, do you mean
WP:EDIANS?
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
08:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional Weak Support - If the first link is changed as Spitfire suggests, this would have my weak support. This quote, though dry and boring, is moderately appropriate for a slow news day.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per political bias... –
Juliancolton |
Talk
16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I don't see how we (wikipedia) need "change" as such, change would suggest that we would be replacing what already existed at wikipedia
Spitfire :
Chat
21:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - neutrality concerns, vague message. Even a link to
WP:EDIANS instead of
WP:USERPAGE would still have my oppose. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1. I changed userpage to edians. I meant for the we to stand for wikipedians.
男らし
い冬
17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- comment: Without change, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is today. Without change, Wikipedia wouldn't improve. I look at this motto more of a historical motto than just political bias. This motto to me is a sign of hope. That is nothing boring to me. --
男らし
い冬
17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still oppose - Sorry, but I find myself agreeing with La Pianista. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Per my above. I don't think the neutrality concerns are really a big problem. The election is over, and we link to quotes from controversial political figures from time to time. My only objection is that the quote is dry and boring; President Obama isn't much of an orator. He's no
Jed Bartlet. Or maybe he just needs some
better
speachwriters. However, the quote is appropriate for Wikipedia, as the nominator (sorry, your username just shows up as a bunch of boxes on my screen so I can't use your name) points out.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
→ You can`t start a
fire without a
spark.
Another slightly simply one, I know we get quite a lot of FA related mottos, but...
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
09:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - It's fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with
WP:FA related mottos; after all, that's why we approve so many of them. Still, the quote could also work with links that describe how Wikipedia as a whole grows from spark to fire instead of a single article. I can't think of a set of links right off the top of my head that would express that, though... If anyone else comes up with a set of links that express that idea well, that would have my strong support. Until then, though, there's nothing wrong with the quote as currently linked.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Sure. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Wasn't there another like this? Was it "From a spark there shall rise a flame"???
Simon
KSK
17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I like "The Boss"! + hOt tIp (^___^): for searching through the archives, I really recommend you ALL to try
this one out. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
07:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Umm... no comments. Well, just one; looks really dumb to me, I don't know why I'm posting this.
Chamal
talk
14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support- Actually, I kind of like it. It welcomes contributions from and cooperation between constructive editors, while telling those bad guys where to shove it. I'm not 100% satisfied with the link for "
panic," but I can't think of anything better, so let's run with it.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support! I'll come with you. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
WP:SNOW.
Simply south (
talk)
21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
William Shakespeare (1564–1616),
King Lear, Act III, Scene ii (1623) –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined per
WP:SNOW.
Simply south (
talk)
21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As simple as it gets and probably not as ggood an idea as the others...
Simply south (
talk)
20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - this falls into the category of the bland that I would normally support under the "Slow News Day Act" (issued by
Nutiketaiel the Terrible), but I perhaps have a natural tendency against vandal mottoes. Not that all vandal-related mottoes are bad, but the blandness of them just seem magnified. —
La Pianista
♫
♪
05:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Rejected - withdrawn.
Queenie
15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
→ This
land does not belong to
one person, but
to all. Let us together
build this world, that we may share in the days of peace.
I changed it in a minor way from the original: "day > land", "man > person" and "rebuild > build", hope this is ok? Any ideas for a link for "days of peace" or "together"?
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
06:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Approved for
Wikipedia:Motto of the day/May 8, 2009 per
an sneachta.
Queenie
12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Age quod agis
(“Do what you are doing” or “Do well whatever you do”)
Source unknown. Used as the motto of several Catholic schools. Nominated in
Do what you do, and win $100 while you're at it! by
AH1 and rejected. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
08:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I see what you're going for here, but frankly it just seems like a random latin statement if we can't source it. Just something John-icus Doe-icus said on his way to the forum.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Rejected per
teh whitey.
Queenie
12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a lot of self reverts after getting mixed up...
Chamal
talk
13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved due to
strange weather patterns.
Simply south (
talk)
10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A reference to the oft-parodied Hotel Mario CD-i game --
UberScienceNerd
Talk
Contributions
03:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Somewhere between weak and normal support. Sounds okay, but the links have been used a lot before. Basically, it's an original motto with unoriginal links. Otherwise, as I said, okay.
Wikiert
T
S
C
13:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Not a very interesting one, but good message. So, works for me I guess.
Chamal
talk
13:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Mario is a "classic" of video games! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
07:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - The links are good, but the quote itself is a little... bizarre... to apply to Wikipedia.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support: I couldn't agree more with Nutiketaiel,
Bootlicker
Boots for sale!
19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hope she made lotsa spaghetti... er, I mean Support. I think enough people are familiar with Hotel Mario through YouTube.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Many otters •
One hammer •
HELP)
19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Though I myself am far from a gamer, I'll accept that perhaps this is not so bizarre for...normal editors. ;) —
La Pianista
♫
♪
05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
being battered with many snowballs.
Simply south (
talk)
10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You will never stand taller than when you kneel to help a
child.
I like this one, personally
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
the blizzard.
Simply south (
talk)
10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably not the best, but I'm feeling bored now :P
Chamal
talk
13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
snow.
Simply south (
talk)
10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
→ You had me at
hello
- Thought it was pretty cool --
♥Soccer5525♥
Talk To Me!
15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - Kinda cute, not as meh as I thought it might have been. Maybe for a slow news day. ;) —
La Pianista
♫
♪
16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I quite like this one, actually. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Yes, it's pretty cool. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
06:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I'm actually OK with this one, on any news day. The Welcoming Committee is an important project, and it's nice to draw attention to them. And it is kind of cute (not as cute as La Pianista, of course).
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support: This one made me smile, also good as it draws attention to the Welcoming Committee, always a good thing,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Great- it's snapp-ay!
Wikiert
T
S
C
19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
WP:SNOW.
Simply south (
talk)
21:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
→ Any society that would give up a
little liberty to gain a
little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Mmmm, not so sure about this one, again, feel free to oppose, please suggest new links, specially for "little security", cheers
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Conditional Weak Oppose - First off, I don't really like the links. You're implying that
WP:IAR and the rest of the policies and guidelines are mutually exclusive, and they're not. They live together in a complex harmony riddled with
consonants and vowels. Anyway, secondly, I'm pretty sure this has been used before. That's why my "weak oppose" is conditional; if it HAS been used before, it would change to "strong oppose." Oh, and we always feel free to oppose every motto. You really don't need to invite us to do so every time you post one. ;-)
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: don't miss
this edit summary ;p. I did think of what you mention about IAR and the Policies and guidelines being the "same" and my suggesting they were not, but couldn't find a better link for "little security". As for having been used before, it may have been, but not with the same wording, so may be hard to find :\, so for now I'd just leave it as "Strong Oppose".
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I'm having trouble thinking of a good link for it, too, but I don't think we should approve it in its current form. It just sends a bad message, in my opinion. I herevy change my opinion to Oppose.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
12:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support!!! How about adding
WP:Goals (Wikipedia:Five pillars) to deserve neither??? –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Declined - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What, we are out of mottoes again? I can't believe how every time I visit this page they seem to be running out. So here's another Sherlock Holmes motto, not because I think it's great but because it seems we need some. So it's probably not the best :P
Chamal
talk
11:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Declined - withdrawn.
Simply south (
talk)
16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. BW21.--
12hctawkcalB (
talk)
00:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
WP:SNOW.
Simply south (
talk)
16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
My first one...probably not original... Also: Sic semper Dooku ♪♫
The New Mikemoral
talk
contribs
05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: Hate to oppose your first motto, but why are we calling admins as tyrants? Shouldn't it be Sic semper tyrannis, btw?
Chamal
talk
07:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - not all admins are tyrants. —
La Pianista
Speak ·
Hear
21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Despite their appearance, not all admins are tyrants. –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion: I think it's a good motto that deserves to be used, but we need to change the link to point to vandals/vandalism instead of administrators (e.g.:
WP:ABUSE;
WP:-(;
WP:AOLIP;...). Also, this phrase, without the context, is not clear. I think it's better to use the long form, "sic semper evello mortem tyrannīs" ("thus always death happens/occurs/comes to tyrants"). –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
08:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- While I Strongly Oppose the quote as originally linked, Pjoef's suggestion of
WP:ABUSE would have my Weak Support. However, I do not think we need to use the long form, as Sic Semper Tyrannis is one of the most famous latin phrases in the world. Anyone who doesn't know that one is a
true philistine, especially since there is an arrow link right next to it.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Rejected per consensus.
Queenie
12:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1- Per Pjoef's suggested linking, above.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support- Per my above. This link is definitely an improvement over the original, though I still don't think it is 100% suited to the quote. I can't find anything better, though. Additionally, I remain strongly opposed to the use of the long form of the quote, as this form is its iconic version. I'm sure
Brutus would agree (if he did actually say it).
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Rejected per consensus.
Queenie
12:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Don’t ever
wrestle with a
pig. You’ll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it.
I quite like this one, note a troll is a disruptive editor who attempts to provoke violent response from other editors, currently I am linking to soft redirects, should I just provide a direct link to meta?
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- suppport. It fits.
Simply south (
talk)
21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support. It made me chuckle, points awarded.
Malpass93 (
talk)
21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Feels a little bare of links at the end, but nice message.
Icy //
♫
21:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, though I agree that the links could use some improvements. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
21:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Looks great the way it is. Please do not add links to the last part- you'd just be linking to make the motto more blue, as the quote already says all it needs to. I personally prefer direct links to Metawiki most of the time, but there is nothing wrong with the soft redirects either.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Approved per
WP:SNOW for one month from now.
Simply south (
talk)
11:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Meh, sure someone can think up better links? Specially for "Happy"? Quite long I know. PS:the edit summary will be to long if you try to edit this section just delete it, press preview, and then save
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
07:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus in discussion.
Simply south (
talk)
21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Done
Queenie
11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Approved for
Wikipedia:Motto of the day/April 30, 2009.
Queenie
11:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
- It's about ambition and eternal. Satan asks his lieutenants how to fight the will of God. The consultation begun, and Moloch, the fallen angel, horrid king, besmeared with blood / of human sacrifice, (from Book I), counsels open war because he think there is nothing to lose, and the most that God can do is to destroy them.
...and by what best way,
Whether of open war or covert guile,
We now debate. Who can advise may speak."
He ceased; and next him Moloch, sceptred king,
Stood up–the strongest and the fiercest Spirit
That fought in Heaven, now fiercer by despair.
His trust was with th' Eternal to be deemed
Equal in strength, and rather than be less
Cared not to be at all; with that care lost
Went all his fear: of God, or Hell, or worse,
He recked not, and these words thereafter spake:–
"My sentence is for open war....
Generally, I'm not inclined to transform the original text, but we can change the verb tense from simple past to simple present.
BAD NEWS /o\!!!
Dear Nutiketaiel,
I hope you are joking, and that you are not feeling put down by me. It was not my intention at all /o\!!! We all have some complexes that are not under conscious control. We each have different skills and abilities, and yYou are highly intelligent, generous, open-minded, nice –I'm thinking to that delicious ice cream (^_^)– creative,.... Please, treat me as an equal, and appreciate yourself for all who you are, and others for the same reason and without competing. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
08:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- GOOD NEWS!!! I did not sleep well that night (^__^). –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
10:45, 16 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)
- Weak Oppose: Per Nutiketaiel, asides from being: "
hard to understand" for many, the linking is not in my opinion paticulary inspired, but I'm not fully opposed to it,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Rejected per consensus.
Queenie
11:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Richard Henry Stoddard (July 2, 1825 - May 12, 1903), Hymn to the Beautiful –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
07:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
-
WP:VANISH is better than
WP:BU! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- People come and go in this world, and our life is just a flutter of a wing (^__^). –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the key part here is "the Messengers of God". But, I agree with you, it doesn't say very much... excluding the fact that it's a "Hymn to the Beautiful" Aren't we beautiful (^__^)? –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Rejected per consensus.
Queenie
15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Has this been done before?
Simply south (
talk)
17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Declined per consensus.
Simply south (
talk)
22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)