Revision as of 22:25, 7 March 2009 editLa Pianista (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,875 edits →→ I'll be back.: rez← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:58, 7 March 2009 edit undoAstroHurricane001 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,054 edits →→ Love, Live, Pray, Think, Dare: supportNext edit → | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
*'''Support''' - per Julian and Pianista. '''<font face="Verdana">]<sup>]</sup></font>''' 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Support''' - per Julian and Pianista. '''<font face="Verdana">]<sup>]</sup></font>''' 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
*'''Support''': The links outline some of the more important things about using wikipedia, minus "pray" of course :p, ]<sup>]</sup> 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | *'''Support''': The links outline some of the more important things about using wikipedia, minus "pray" of course :p, ]<sup>]</sup> 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
*'''Support'''. Good idea and philosophy. | |||
=== ] ] === | === ] ] === |
Revision as of 23:58, 7 March 2009
Motto of the DayParticipants Discussion (Nominations) Guidelines
Nominations (New mottos go here) In review + Specials + Decisions
Frequently Used Ideas Schedule (Upcoming mottos)
Archives (Schedule and nominations)
Motto ShopParticipants Discussion Requests
Templates Closed Requests (1, 2)
ShortcutsWhen placing mottos, please include them in the top of the In Review section instead of the bottom. Thank you.
In review
Look before you leap.
This is a commonly used phrase which I'm sure must have been used here before. Any suggestions for better links? Wikiert 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support: I like it, whilst being bold is good, it also does no harm to be a little discreet, which this motto encourages, the motto is maybe a little simple, but thats not necessarily a bad thing Spitfire 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - how about changing the first link to WP:T2T? —La Pianista 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.
Any better links? Chamal 13:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Not bad; the chosen link is adequate, though not great. How about WP:Talk Page, WP:TALK or WP:CONSENSUS? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Works for me. –Juliancolton 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- A plug to Editor review could go well here. iMatthew // talk // 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I would think that WP:PR would be better. That project needs help. —La Pianista 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. How about WP:SPOKEN? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I like this one more then the others, I think drawing more people to the village pump is a better idea then drawing them to the spoken article project or peer review, just my opinion, Spitfire 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.
Edit 1 - Per Pjoef, above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Pjoef's suggestion is perfect. A novel, clever link to a section of Misplaced Pages that doesn't get alot of attention. it has the added benefit of being hilarious. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - though I pray that no one has a dirty mind... —Ed 17 09:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Great idea. ~AH1 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Finally, a good use for your mouth.
Edit 2 per me. —La Pianista 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - Though it pains me to do so, Pianista, I maintain my support for Pjoef's suggestion (above). The link to WP:SPOKEN directs the user to an underutilized and underrated section of the Wiki that helps make it more accessible to everyone, and I think they deserve the attention. In addition, the WP:SPOKEN link fits slightly better with the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Reopened all - no consensus. Simply south (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Love, Live, Pray, Think, Dare
United Daughters of the Confederacy. BW21.--BlackWatch21 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Another well-linked short motto. —La Pianista 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Nice one. –Juliancolton 05:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - It's OK, but as a general rule I don't like encouraging people to pray. Except to me, of course. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Slow news day??? Simon 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Eh, sure, why not? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Slow news day??? Simon 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - per Julian and Pianista. Simon 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: The links outline some of the more important things about using wikipedia, minus "pray" of course :p, Spitfire 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Good idea and philosophy.
→ That's not gone well!
I have a feeling this'll be shot down at once, but I'll have a go anyway. Queenie 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support- The quote is good, but the page it links too isn't very good in my opinion. What about linking it to WP:MISTAKES or WP:ERROR? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)- Done I think WP:ERROR fits better. Thanks. Queenie 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Groovy. Change my opinion to Support then. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done I think WP:ERROR fits better. Thanks. Queenie 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - A bit bland, but it'll work. –Juliancolton 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - maybe on a...no, an adagio news day. —La Pianista 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Har de har har. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's teapot's phrase, not mrs piano. Simply south is this a buffet? 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Har de har har. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If life gives you lemons, you had better go get water and sugar too or your lemonade will not taste very good.
This is a slight alteration of a quote I heard from one of my co-workers. I normally wouldn't be happy with referring to Stubs as "Lemons," but I think it works in the context of the quote- namely, something that's not all that great on its own, but with water and sugar becomes something really sweet. I am not totally satisfied with the link for water, though, so I am open to suggestions on that point. It would be nice if there was a page with information on the inclusion of supporting materials in general... does anyone know a page like that? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Links for water and sugar switched per suggestion from South. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - But there is nothing here to say, really, besides that. Good motto! —La Pianista 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Wow, that's the best in a long time. And being the old man here, I mean it. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Old man"? I haven't seen you at MOTD in eons, Biblio. Casual interest does not suffice for committed experience. ;) —La Pianista 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would actually just switch images and WP:RS around as i think it would make more sense, just showing that images are optional and you shouldn't over do it. So If life gives you lemons, you had better go get water and sugar too or your lemonade will not taste very good. Perhaps? Simply south is this a buffet? 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent suggestion; I have done so. Though, to be fair, I would not consider sugar optional when making lemonade... ;-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Simply excellent. –Juliancolton 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Very nice, encourages expansion of stubs so it can't go wrong really. "Life" could be linked to Category:All articles to be expanded? Not really important regarding that "lemons" links to WP:STUB, I suppose, anyway, great motto Spitfire 17:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Prepare to cross the line.
Chamal 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Short, direct and to the point with a good message. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Just the type of motto we need for a change of pace. —La Pianista 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Short, sweet, and to the point. –Juliancolton 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - nice job, Chamal. Good movie too. :) —Ed 17 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unsolicited and Unhelpful Movie Criticism - Meh. It was just OK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support: hmmm, can't really relate being bold with crossing enemy lines, but it's ok nonetheless Spitfire
→ Rather than be less
Cared not to be at all.
John Milton (1608–1674), Paradise Lost, Book II (1667) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification Request - This is another one of those that is difficult for me to interpret without context. I mean, I can guess the context since it comes from Paradise Lost, but I can't be certain. Could you clarify, please? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Support- Ah, I love to gloat. Like most of Pjoef's mottoes, though, the wording is a little archaic, but it makes perfect sense to me. Modern translation: "It's better to be less than nothing at all." —La Pianista 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
→ More than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. You can help!
Taken from Misplaced Pages:About. This page is running dry again, so I added two mottos this Monday, and I hope they are good enough. Have a wonderful week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - It's not bad, and inspirational in its way. I'm just not sure I can get 100% behind a motto that is essentially a list of stastics. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - Agreed 100% with Nutiketaiel. –Juliancolton 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support per above. If there were a way to convey this more cleverly, I would strengthen my support. —La Pianista 06:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
→ The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one.
I found the quote kind of interesting, but I'm not too sure about the links. Chamal 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Support: it's ok! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support with Suggestion - It's not bad, but the links don't seem to fit well. What about "The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one."? Those links would have my strong support- they highlight an important area of the Wiki in a way that fits with the wording and original context of the quote. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
→ The greatest challenge for eight men... was saving one.
Edit 1 per Slow News Day, aka MOTD Editor in Chief, and/or Nutiketaiel, and/or Jim. —La Pianista 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - There really isn't much left to say without making this sound suspiciously like bribery...and/or sockpuppetry. —La Pianista 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - To clarify, this is not strong support for the motto since some users have asked me not to support my own suggestions (even though, if I were to do so, this motto would have my strong support). This is actually Strong Support of La Pianista's decision to promote me to Editor-in-Chief. This is a proud day for me, my fellow editors. Long have I
lusted for powerdesired to servemy empirethe community better by being in a position of authority. Now that MotD is under my jurisdiction, there are going to be sweeping changes. To start with, I'm promoting La Pianista to Demigod, Empress, Queen, First Lady and Administrator-for-Life and awarding her 2 of every Barnstar. Pjoef's is hereby promoted to Minister of Culture and Literature, but quotes are now limited to sources written after 1900 CE. Chamal is hereby promoted to Minister of Film and Grand Duke of Film Quotes; I further decree that mistakenly refering to Chamal as the wrong gender is punishable by the Death of a Thousand Edits. Simply South and Queenie are promoted to my co-Prime Ministers, and are responsible for all the actual work done in my dominion (of course, they do most of it anyway). Juliancolton is promoted to Minister of Creative Veterinary Science, Technology and Culture, and is responsible for the health and grooming of all felines in our realm. The second Thursday of every month is declared to be "Slow News Day." Everyone gets a flying car. The term "consensus" shall be redefined to mean "the Mercurial Whims of Fate." Every Wednesday is "Free Ice Cream Day." The talk page shall be redesigned to include continuous screenings of any movie that Chamal has put a quote up from. Every Sunday, the motto of the day shall be "All Praise to Our Glorious God-Emperor and Editor-in-Chief, and may he live forever." ... I think that about covers the basics. I'm going to go find some attractive women to feed me grapes, and maybe go put in an RfA based on my newly acquired power here. La Pianista's in charge until I get back. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)- And just how
much time did you wastelong did it take the great Editor in Chief to write that? :P —La Pianista 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)- Oh, about 45 minutes or so. Does it not amaze you? ;-) There was probably something else I was supposed to be doing suring that time... work of some sort, perhaps... I'm not really sure. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was summoned? –Juliancolton 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Congratulations on your promotion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now hand me that ice cream, pls. Icy // ♫ 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, OK, as Minister of Ice Cream (in addition to Editor-in-Chief, God-Emperor, etc.), I will deliver it to your user page. Try not to spill any on the mainspace, and eat it before it melts. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now hand me that ice cream, pls. Icy // ♫ 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Congratulations on your promotion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- And just how
- Strong Support - To clarify, this is not strong support for the motto since some users have asked me not to support my own suggestions (even though, if I were to do so, this motto would have my strong support). This is actually Strong Support of La Pianista's decision to promote me to Editor-in-Chief. This is a proud day for me, my fellow editors. Long have I
- Support - Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Icy // ♫ 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - though not before hitting Nutik with one of these for trying to order us mortals around... ;) —Ed 17 09:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Promotion - Wow. Nice broadside. By the power vested in us by whoever was crazy enough to put it there (and now can't take it back), we do hereby promote Ed 17 to Grand Admiral of the MotD Fleet and Minister of
WarDefenseMaking Things Explode in the Pursuit of Just and Honorable Causes. Congratulations. Now don't shoot at me any more. :-( Shooting at your Sovereign Lord is punishable by the Death of a Thousand Edits. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Promotion - Wow. Nice broadside. By the power vested in us by whoever was crazy enough to put it there (and now can't take it back), we do hereby promote Ed 17 to Grand Admiral of the MotD Fleet and Minister of
→ For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,
we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken;
you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
Yet another inauguration excerpt. Not too sure about this one, though. The NPA link is kinda of deep. Simon 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - minor suggestion, really. What would you think of changing "advance their aims" to "advance their aims", with "advance" included in the link? I would also recommend that these longer mottoes be put further down the calendar - it's time for some short ones now. —La Pianista 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- People who are POV-pushers are not necessarily vandals. WP:POINT also is not necessarily vandalism. But the second link makes more sense I guess, though it's not perfect. So, Weak Support if link suggested by La Pianista is added, plus Nutiketaiel has a point too. Chamal 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - A little... melodramatic... isn't it? Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, upon further thought, per Nutiket and Chamal. A bit too "doomy." —La Pianista 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose! Uhmmm ... was he talking about mass media? I'm sorry, but I really don't like this one. IMHO, this was the worst part of his inaugural speech. peACE –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Reopened - no consensus. Queenie 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: Meh, seems to be saying "vandalise wikipedia and we'll block you!" I know it wasn't meant like that, but I just can't support something that links to WP:BLOCK in this way, its too violent even for a Recent changes patroller like myself ;p Spitfire 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.
–Juliancolton 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe the first two links should be WP:Criticisms and WP:About. SAVIOR_SELF.777 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I considered that, but I prefer the mainspace links in this case. –Juliancolton 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support, of Conditional support really. the links need to be changed a little, I think. --Kfc18645 talk 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Any suggestions? –Juliancolton 05:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- How about → Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player. If you have a problem with referring to RfA as a "game," tell me. —La Pianista 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I generally like the idea, but I'm not really comfortable referring to adminship as a "game". I suppose it can't hurt to try, however. –Juliancolton 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- What about changing the wlink for Mistakes to point to WP:NCH (Misplaced Pages:New contributors' help page)??? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- That could work, though, frankly, I think Edit 1 is better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- How about → Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player. If you have a problem with referring to RfA as a "game," tell me. —La Pianista 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Any suggestions? –Juliancolton 05:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.
Edit 1 at the suggestion of La Pianista. I'm not sure about referring to adminship as a game, but we'll see what everybody else thinks. –Juliancolton 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good to me; nothing like encouraging people to "try, try again," as the old saying goes. I wasn;t that comfortable with the original link for "Mistakes" anyway. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I am really not conformable with the fact that this motto calls RfA a game. Simon 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Aww, c'mon, it's just a little poetic license. Besides, you shouldn't take Admins so seriously. I know I don't. Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- –Juliancolton 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I know that admins are no big deal. It's just there are many people in Misplaced Pages who do. Simon 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Well, if there are many people on Misplaced Pages who think that Admins are a big deal, all the more reason to approve this motto to help them to stop thinking of Admins as such a big deal. Like the kitty cat said. Kitty cats are wise and powerful. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I know that admins are no big deal. It's just there are many people in Misplaced Pages who do. Simon 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- –Juliancolton 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Aww, c'mon, it's just a little poetic license. Besides, you shouldn't take Admins so seriously. I know I don't. Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose! I'm sorry, but I don't like the links used in this version. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
→ Mistakes are part of the game. It's how well you recover from them, that's the mark of a great player.
Edit 2 - maybe this can work. At least, if FA isn't hackneyed already. —La Pianista 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support, though not as much support as for edit 1 - This version is good and the links fit. I do think Edit 1 is better, but since that seems unlikely to pass because of everyone's reverence for Admins and failure to obey the dictates of the LOLcat, I offer my support to La Pianista's alternative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Reopened all - no consensus. Simply south is this a buffet? 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: the links are more aimed at the average editor, which is why this one gains my support over the others Spitfire 17:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ I'll be back.
Not the most interesting one, I guess. Chamal 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose bland. Simply south is this a buffet? 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - It IS bland, but everybody's been clamoring for short mottos lately, so it kind of fits what we're looking for, and it is good to remind people of the health sustaining benefits of the Wikibreak... Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Everyone is not clamoring. And yes, this motto is a bit meh. —La Pianista 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Apologetic Statement - Sorry, I didn't mean to be so sweeping in my assumptions. I'll rephrase (changes italicized). "...but many individuals, such as La Pianista, have been clamoring for short mottos lately..." Does that work better, my dear? :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- A) I am not "many individuals." Weaseling, indeed. Unless, of course, your admiration for me is so great that you have cloned my being to provide you with those attractive women to feed you grapes. B) The diff you provide is not appropriate for "clamoring." There is a certain giving of hints peculiar to our gender, which comes across as much more elegant and apropos. I prefer the latter - clamoring is wholly indelicate, unbefitting of a lady such as I. —La Pianista 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- A) I did not say that you were "many individuals," I used you as an example of that group. The weaseling tag was directed at my own phrasing, not at you. As for cloning you... hmmm... well, cloning is complicated and expensive, and as you already have a clone sitting around that hasn't done anything since January 24th, I guess she can feed me grapes. I'll have them delivered immediately. Thanks for the suggestion. B) Clamoring was an innappropriate categorization of your actions and comments, and I apologize from the bottom of my heart. We could perhaps say instead that you were wistful for the bygone days of shorter mottos; would that be more appropriate? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would have spent the time to concoct a valid response if it weren't for the violent fit of laughter that has overtaken my person. Now shush, you! :P —La Pianista 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- A) I did not say that you were "many individuals," I used you as an example of that group. The weaseling tag was directed at my own phrasing, not at you. As for cloning you... hmmm... well, cloning is complicated and expensive, and as you already have a clone sitting around that hasn't done anything since January 24th, I guess she can feed me grapes. I'll have them delivered immediately. Thanks for the suggestion. B) Clamoring was an innappropriate categorization of your actions and comments, and I apologize from the bottom of my heart. We could perhaps say instead that you were wistful for the bygone days of shorter mottos; would that be more appropriate? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- A) I am not "many individuals." Weaseling, indeed. Unless, of course, your admiration for me is so great that you have cloned my being to provide you with those attractive women to feed you grapes. B) The diff you provide is not appropriate for "clamoring." There is a certain giving of hints peculiar to our gender, which comes across as much more elegant and apropos. I prefer the latter - clamoring is wholly indelicate, unbefitting of a lady such as I. —La Pianista 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apologetic Statement - Sorry, I didn't mean to be so sweeping in my assumptions. I'll rephrase (changes italicized). "...but many individuals, such as La Pianista, have been clamoring for short mottos lately..." Does that work better, my dear? :-P Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: Can't support something that might encourage users to leave the project, even if only for a short time, I know it wasn't meant to mean that, but it could be interpreted to Spitfire 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Even Einstein asked questions.
α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - we need links to the Misplaced Pages namespace. How about, "Even Einstein asked questions? Simon 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like linking "Einstein" to Wikipedians. How about we just link the whole thing to WP:ASK? Chamal 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be more suitable as Even Einstein asked questions. Simply south is this a buffet? 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't that make it sound like Einstein used the Misplaced Pages RefDesk? Chamal 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - I'm sure he would have, had it been available to him. :-) In seriousness, I support Chamal's idea of linking the entire quote to WP:ASK. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Even Einstein asked questions.
Per Chamal. Simon 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per Chamal. —La Pianista 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: good link and intriguing motto. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per my above. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Good motto, intriguing link. (same as Pjoef but the other way round :P) Spitfire 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Hi, I'm Ed Winchester!
Why do i have this feeling i have tried this? If not, a common sketch where a news reporter (not always the same person) turned up in different locations announcing this, then most times it would move onto another sketch. I am also wondering whether for the second link it could use a specials page but i have forgotten which one it is (if e1 done, log for new users). Simply south is this a buffet? 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - It looks good to me. Always nice to remind people about the welcoming committee. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - A bit bland, but I agree with Nutiketaiel. –Juliancolton 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - No complaints, not that meh. —La Pianista 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - good one! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
→ Ambition is our idol, on whose wings
Great minds are carried only to extreme;
To be sublimely great, or to be nothing.
Thomas Southerne (1660 - May 22, 1746), The Loyal Brother, Act I, Scene i (1682) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I like the quote, but the last two links bother me. It implies that there are only two choices- to become a featured article, or to be deleted. Many articles are just fine hanging out at the GA level. I'm not sure I like the implication of an "all or nothing" there. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - how about changing the last two to sublimely great and nothing? —La Pianista 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, but then that would repeat the "EDIAN" link. Never mind, sorry. —La Pianista 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Nut. There's a heck of a lot between FA and AFD. –Juliancolton 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion - What about sublimely great and nothing? Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional Weak Support if Nutiketaiel's suggestion is implemented. It's still not the strongest message, though. Chamal 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
→ Ambition is our idol, on whose wings
Great minds are carried only to extreme;
To be sublimely great, or to be nothing.
Edit 1- Thomas Southerne (1660 - May 22, 1746), The Loyal Brother, Act I, Scene i (1682); changed per my above suggestion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - The last two links may not be a strong message, Chamal, but I think the first link ("Ambition is our idol") is an excellent and important one to express. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I actually like the bit at the end. / La Pianista 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Slightly Weak Support: These links are better. I find the part about how Wikipedians are carried to the extreme a bit weird though. The article thingy is OK, but the red link one seems to be out of place. I just can't put my finger on it :P Chamal 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
References
Category: