Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2



In a unorganized organization (organized unorganization?) such as Wikipedia, moral authority is important. Senior editor badges:

  • Give a bit of formal recognition to editors who have worked long and hard.
  • Allows other editors to see at once that they are dealing with a very experienced editor, and (hopefully) give that person's comments a bit of extra weight.
  • If the "no administrators" option is used, it gives editors something to work toward besides administratorship (which, in theory, should not be status symbol but which is in fact a Very Big Deal). The fact that administratorship is a Very Big Deal warps the RfA process and skews the ranks of aministrators to include people who aren't necessarily suited. The senior editor badges are just badges, but pace Napoleon, men will strive quite a lot for a bit of ribbon.
  • If, on the hand, the "stable articles" option is used instead, obviously senior editors would peform a necessary function.Herostratus 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... there's no vetting?

Right. Of course, a few people who achive senior editorship might be bad or disruptive editors, but, really, how many bad or distruptive editors get 10,000 edits? There are a few Nobel Prize winners, Booker Prize winners, Medal of Freedom winners, Legion of Honor winners, and what have you that are undeserving. But not many, and we know who they are and can discount them commensurately.

And yes, senior editorship can never be taken away, even if an editor is banned for life (although it wouldn't mean much then, would it?). After all, even Benedict Arnold has a monument at Saratoga, and properly so, notwithstanding his later activities.

In other words, it is completely removed from politics. Herostratus 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I really like your proposal. —Nightstallion (?) 10:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If the stable articles variation is adopted, how will the bit be set?

Well, once the backlog is cleared, this should not be an onerous task - editors achieving the requirements could contact a bureacrat, who would check their edit history and set the bit; not very many would likely be achieving the requirements in a given time period.Herostratus 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't that mean that bad or disruptive senior editors could mess up stable articles?

Yes, of course. But among the editors with 10,000+ edits, the great majority would be good editors, and it ought to be easy to overwhelm the rare bad editor with sheer numbers.

As for someone who sets their goal to accumulate 10,000 edits over a two-year period just so they can (try to) control certain stable articles -- first of all, that person really does have no life and will probably find many ways to be obnoxious; second of all, it won't work, other senior editors will track and revert him; and third of all, after working hard for two years, he might well forget his original plot and actually come to appreciate the project. [User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Won't this encourage editcountitis?

I suppose so, yes. Still, you can't get to 10,000 edits/two years without doing some serious good work and learning a lot. Well, I suppose you could, if you really set your mind to making 10,000 spelling corrections or whatever (which would still be very useful), but how many people would do that? Anyone could see that that's what they'd done, so how useful would senior editorship be to them anyway. If it gets people to want to build up their edit counts that high, that's a good thing, isn't it? And anyway, it's all worth it to remove the entire process complely from politics. Herostratus 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

it is easy to get 10,000 edits by just edit-warring and wikilawyering if that's your character (we'd need some sort of edit-count that ignores revert-warring edits). There is also no comparing 10,000 housekeeping edits to 10,000 content-adding edits, although both kinds of course add up to significant value. Concerning the "time active" clause, I could just do nothing for two years from now and be a SE IV free. You want to measure the "time active" with some sort of 'counting only days with at least 10 edits' clause. dab () 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points. Here's what I'd say: I don't think it is easy to get 10,000 edits (at least half in article space) just by edit-warring and such. 10,000 is a lot of edits. Nobody makes 10,000 houskeeping edits; they'd go nuts. At least a couple thousand would be normal edits, don't you think? And housekeeping edits are valuable too. As for calendar time... you can't really make 10,000 edits in a couple of months and then wait idle for two years, very easily at least. I mean, OK, your points are valid but would apply to very, very few editors in my opinion. No system is perfect. I want to keep it very simple and entirely removed from politics and human judgement. Herostratus 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

we have userboxes and barnstars, so why not this?

  • I mean, apart from the "formal", what's to stop people to just slap the badges on their userpages (I might consider gracing my userpage with one, although I still have to work on that coffee-stain). But WP-is-NOT a roleplaying game. seriously, "an alternative path to recognition"? You gain recognition via merit, not via number of edits. There are a few individuals who qualify for this just by virtue of being a perpetual PITA. WP is a meritocracy, or at least it should be. As for "stable articles", we already have them, they are the FAs at the moment they are being featured. If a FA improves further, we might introduce an unbureaucratic "re-featuring" process that nominates the evolved version as the official FAC-approved (stable) version. dab () 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. This doesn't need to be a "proposal" that gets "adopted". In fact, probably what's going to happen is, I'll go through the lists and hand these out to all who qualify (I'll need an alternative graphic). Maybe it'll catch on, doubtful, but who knows? The "stable article" thing is, some folks are mooting the idea of somehow protecting articles that are "finished"... but they should have some ability to be edited, but by whom? Admins, one fellow said... but that's just piling more perqs on adminship... Herostratus 07:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
More "formal" badge (draft sample)... enh, needs more thought or a better designer.

Out of curiosity, how do you plan to stop people who don't meet the requirements from putting the badges on their userpages anyways? Or do you think this won't be a problem? Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, honor system I guess. But if came across one, I'd ask them to delete it, if no satisfactory answer I'd delete it. But if reverted I don't know as there's much you could do, I guess. Herostratus 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the stuff on the article page about stable articles and all. I'd say keep it simple and just make it a purely honorary award with no powers or anything else at all. That allows only non-admins to be eligibla. Herostratus 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec -- admins are ineligible?

Yes. The point is to give editors who are inclined that way a goal to shoot for, and a reward for getting there. This is no wise anti-administrator in any way. But administrators interests and skills presumably lie in a different area than editors who are mostly interested purely in content editing, and their reward (if reward it is) is being selected for administratorship. Herostratus 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And what about administrators who have made great contributions to articles, as well? What about those who are awarded one of those badges, but become administrators later? What about former administrators? —Nightstallion (?) 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, all good points. I removed the non-admin thingy. Herostratus 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; as I've said before, I really like the proposal, including the visuals. Let's hope it becomes accepted quickly. :)Nightstallion (?) 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The first one is awarded

Well, I decided to apply that new badge and start awarding it: Irpen is awarded the Bronze Editor Badge with its Book of Knowledge. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Earlier versions talked about only applying this to non-admins and possibly using the levels to allow editing of stable articles, and had no levels below Tutnum. Since all this has been changed, the previous talk has been archived to avoid confusion with the new stable version. Herostratus 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


The main reason for the award is, as with any Barnstar and for the same reason, to reward a certain type of valuable contribution. Herostratus 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology (informal version)

Burba is what Babelfish gives as the Italian translation for "rookie". Grognards was Napoleon's affectionate name for his Old Guard; it means "grumblers" in French, I believe. Tutnum has no meaning.

Summary of responses to old versions

  • Initial Village Pump proposal, based now-removed aspects, got:
    • one strong oppose
    • one unclear but apparantly supportive
  • On this talk page (now archived), got:
    • one support.
    • one dubious, citing ability to meet edit requirements by mostly minor or revert-war edits, and time requirements by just letting time pass without doing anything. (my response: seems unlikely)
    • one dubious, citing that merit speaks for itself and requires no badge, and Wikipedia is not a role-playing game.
    • one merely asking how it would be policed (my response: honor system)
  • At Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals#Editor service awards, got:
    • one neutral
    • two support (plus another who used it, which counts as support I would think)
    • one oppose
    • also a couple commenters not high on the informal-versions terminology (Tutnum etc.), and a seconded suggestion to use OBE-type levels (Knight Commandor, Knight Grand Cross, etc.)(my response: (1) informal terminology improved, although same general approach used, is it OK now? (2) use formal version if not liking informal version (3) OBE-type levels a good idea, suggest as a separate "highly formal" version when someone willing to make the graphics, rather than replacing informal version) Herostratus 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to template space

My inclination is to move this to template space, barring some outcry and/or cogent arguments against this. Since it is a collection of stars, I think this page ought to have its own line in Template:Barnstarpages. Herostratus 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Status as of July 29 2006

Taking all the discussions together, I'm seeing a roughly 50-50 split. So here's what I'm going to do now (which of course any editor can change), which seems a reasonable compromise:

  • I won't delete the service awards, but I also won't make templates of the individual awards, list them on the barnstar template, or add any mention of them anywhere on the barnstar pages.
  • I will move the page from my userspace to Wikipedia space, let them remain in the Category:Wikipedia awards (another editor has placed them there), and personally give out a few here and there.
  • If another editor wants to put up the page as a "Proposed guideline" to get either a decisive rejection or acceptance, that would perhaps be reasonable in my opinion. True, they are just barnstars, which don't usually go up a proposed guidelines, but since its a whole system of stars maybe it would be OK. Herostratus 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Isn't this largely redundant to the edit count userboxes? Those userboxes are better than service awards, IMO, because they:

  • are self-defining.
  • acknowledge a greater number of intermediate levels.
  • don't presume that a higher edit count necessarily means a more accomplished editor.
  • don't require a certain number of months of service, and therefore don't give part-time service preferential treatment over full-time service.
  • are much more compact.
  • come in a wide range of attractive colours.

That's why I decline to display my award, even though I do have an edit count userbox. NeonMerlin 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because of the "X year service part". If you're facing someone who is here for 2 years and has 10000 edits, it is far more informative than to see someone who made 10000 edits in a month by using AWB... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea

I came across this when Herostratus mentioned it, and I don't think it's a good idea. We don't need more ranks and orders and hierarchies; someone who adds a few, excellent articles all at once is far more valuable to the encyclopedia than someone who stub sorts a few thousand articles (although both types of work are fine and useful). Barnstars (and actual human expressions of apprecation) are quite sufficient. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. pschemp | talk 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be more blunt: This is really quite stupid. They reinfornce the notion that edit counts and other statistics actually matter or demonstrate some kind of skill, which they don't. There's really no benefit to this aside from "it will make people feel better", which I don't think is true — I certainly wouldn't want to recieve some rote, robotic "award" for making an arbitrary number of edits. If you want to give someone recognition, find a particularly good edit they made, or a good article they wrote, and write them a personalised message. That's the proper way to give people recognition, not more boilerplate junk.--SB | T 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think this is a good idea. It encourages editcountitis. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No it does not, because the most important part is the time you spent on Wikipedia, not the edit count. 2500 edits in 6 months for instance, is a very reasonable number that IMHO does not encourage editcountitis in any way... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Y'all may be right; I don't know. (Neither does anyone, but that's another subject.) To reply:

  • User:JesseW and pschemp: among other cogent objections, said "...someone who adds a few, excellent articles all at once is far more valuable to the encyclopedia than someone who stub sorts a few thousand articles...". Well, of course. Service awards are a piece of information. They tell you something about an editor. Do they tell you everything? No. Do they tell you the most important information about that editor? No. Do they tell you nothing? No. They are what they are.
  • User:Sean Black: "This is really quite stupid. They reinforce the notion that edit counts and other statistics actually matter or demonstrate some kind of skill, which they don't." Well, first of all, it's not stupid. It's based on my considerd thinking about human behavior and motivation in organizations, on which I'm not an expert but I think it's safe to say I know hella more than you do. From the Nobel Prizes to the Burger King Employee Of The Week, human beings thrive on recognition of their accomplishments. They just do, is all. Attaining service award levels is one level of accomplishment. Is it the most important mark of accomplishment? No, of course not. Does that make it meaningless then. I mean, I'm motivated to work toward my next service award level. I don't find that odd or unusual, at all. That's just human. As to the other... Sean, of course edit counts matter; don't be silly. 10,000 edits to the encycylopedia has meaning, has value. Are everyone's edits of equal value? Did I say that? Of course we shouldn't give too much attention to raw edit counts, but neither too little. I mean, it's not like we should discourage editors from adding to the edit counts, which is the impression I'm getting with all the phillipics I hear about the evils of having a high edit count. Sheesh.
  • Finally... as the bumper sticker says, "Against gay marriage? Don't have one". Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to display their service awards. Several editors have expressed interest in and appreciation of the service awards, though. Herostratus 04:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this won't work

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured users pschemp | talk 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh... "Add {{FUC}} to your page and/or talk page...". I think that was a bad joke? Anyway, it was completely political, the opposite of service awards which are completely free from politics, one of its virtues. Herostratus 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reduced required edit count levels by 20%

It's getting rather late to be making any changes to this, but after due consideration I think I slight downward shift, lopping about 20% off the edit counts, was more in sync with the time periods, giving (for instance) 4000 edits rather than 5000 in one year, which seems more typical for an active editor, was in order, so I made that change. Herostratus 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I found this interesting, so I checked and, presuming edits means total edits, not main space edits, could only find User:Bryan Derksen who would qualify for "Complete and Perfect Tutnum". (with The Anome qualifying in November and three or four more next February.) Pretty tough award. (I only make "Grand and Glorious Tutnum of the Encyclopedia" myself as my edits lag my years.) Rmhermen 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

good intentions but...

I think this idea (and those silly "smiles") discourage people from expressing personalised congratulations and thanks. I think it's a bad idea. I'll also add the super fancy welcome messages into this. They all look like boilerplate... I know it's boilerplate... but too look like boilerplate removes all emotion from the message. So...*shrug* whatever. ---J.S (t|c) 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

slight change in level names

I moved the upper levels up a notch -- it seemed that "experienced" and "established" seemed a bit weak to describe someone with 6 or 8000 edits and 1.5 or 2 years service. So I compressed them into one ("Experienced and Established") and made (former) Established -> Veteran, Veteran I -> Veteran II, Veteran II -> Veteran III, Veteran III -> Veteran IV. I'll make the corresponding changes on the few pages where they're being used. Herostratus 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


I just want to say that I like these awards. In a like Wikipedia, politics and POV inevitably comes into play in recognizing editors. It is nice to have this mathmatical indicator of how long someone has been here and how many edits they have made. We have other indicators of other things (how many FA's, whether made administrator, how many times (if ever) blocked or RFC'd, etc.) This is a nice, simple, portion of the picture of someone as a contributor. Johntex\talk 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



It doesn't specify whether one needs X number edits in mainspace or total. --Seans Potato Business 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Total. Herostratus 04:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps mainspace would be better... I use my usepage as a to-do list, among other things, so I have a ton of edits in userspace that aren't helping anyone but myself. Maybe it should be everything except userspace? Λυδαcιτγ 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, yes, I suppose... I also use my userpage to keep stats and stuff and an always updating it... on the other hand, total edits is simpler, and most users don't edit userpages that much to really make a significant difference... and as you say, edits to talk pages, project page, etc. can be as useful as mainspace edits... so all in all I personally would rather just keep it at total edits rather than requiring the additional steps of subtracting just userpage edits, I guess. Herostratus 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. I suppose it's up to the user to decide which edits are significant. Λυδαcιτγ 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't be using your userpages as todo lists and the like. WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site...[Userpages] may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage...please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages a foundation for effective collaboration." See also WP:USER: "It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage", etc. Furthermore, many wikipedians spend little time in mainspace but are massively active in the Wikipedia:, Template: and Category: namespaces, and their contributions are just as valuable, simply different. I.e. this topic is a moot point. Marking it resolved, unless someone really has a strong reason to continue talking about this.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More flexible requirements


It occurs to me that the double requirement of edit count and time served is hampering, because many editors will reach one mark long before they reach the other. Edit count strikes me as more important. Three competing ideas: Get rid of the time served requirement. Or reduce them all (except New) by half while keeping edit count requirements as-is. Or make them flexible:

  • New: as-is
  • Journeyman: 2000 edits + 6 months or 4K+4
  • Yeoman: 4K+12, or 5K+9
  • Experienced: 6K+18, or 7K+15
  • Veteran: 8K+24, or 10K+21
  • Veteran II: 12K+30, or 14K+27
  • Veteran III: 16K+36, or 18K+33
  • Veteran IV: 20K+42, or 22K+39
  • Senior: 24K+48, or 32K+45
  • Master: 40K+60, or 52K+54

Simple mathemetical formulas. An even simpler and more flexible one with rounder numbers might be:

  • New: as-is
  • Journeyman: 2000 edits + 6 months or 4K+3
  • Yeoman: 4K+12, or 5K+6
  • Experienced: 6K+18, or 7K+9
  • Veteran: 8K+24, or 10K+12
  • Veteran II: 12K+30, or 14K+15
  • Veteran III: 16K+36, or 18K+18
  • Veteran IV: 20K+42, or 22K+21
  • Senior: 24K+48, or 32K+24
  • Master: 40K+60, or 52K+30

Or whatever. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with that; I think it's better to keep it as extremely simple as possible. Herostratus 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll mark this "Resolved"; it was just an idea, not something I felt strongly about. If others later on do feel strongly about it they can un"Resolved" the topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"New" doesn't make sense


The moment I make my first edit I'm a "New Editor", logically. I think this should be renamed "Novice" or some other term roughly meaning "newbie". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That makes sense. I went ahead and made the change. Herostratus 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit-count jump for Master is a bit much


I'd cut that down, in proportion to the rest of them, to 32000. Starting with Veteran, all of the jumps are 4000 new edits plus 6 months more service, so the jump from Senior to Master should logically be 8K more if it is 6 extra months (12 total). A jump of 16K edits is expecting 3 years' worth of wikiwork in 1 year all of a sudden! Necessarily the numbers in #More flexible requirements above would also have to be adjusted, to

  • Senior: 24K+48, or 28K+45
  • Master: 32K+60, or 36K+54

in the first example, or

  • Senior: 24K+48, or 28K+24
  • Master: 32K+60, or 36K+30

in the second, using the same formulas.

Or maybe have it be 10K more, instead of 8, for the 12mo. total to get from Senior to Master, with concommittant edits to the more flexible requirements if either were adopted:

  • Senior: 24K+48, or 29K+45
  • Master: 34K+60, or 37K+54

in the first example, or

  • Senior: 24K+48, or 29K+24
  • Master: 34K+60, or 37K+30

in the second (or rounded up in the second so that the 29s are 30s, and the 37s are 38s, since part of the goal of the 2nd example was rounder numbers than the more complicated formula produced in the first.)

Under a revision like this, really prolific editors, who practically live on WP, would be rewarded with an early Master (or whatever rank, under the "More flexible requirements" system), while those who dawdle still won't be rewarded for long "service" if they haven't actually be doing much of anything. Thoughts?

SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, master is the very highest and last level, so it should be a bit hard to accomplish. The large jump in edit numbers was made to reflect this, granted that it doesn't follow a straight linear additive model. As to edit counts, I'd point out that a lot of people are very wary of "editcountits" or over-emphasis on number of edits for anything (e.g., qualification for administratorship). If Service Awards were based solely on edit counts this page probably would have been deleted out of hand, for this reason. There's something to this, since a 5,000-edit editor could have been much more productive than a 25,000-edit editor, depending on the nature of the edits. On the other hand, I don't hold with with extreme anti-editcountitis folks who believe that edits mean absolutely nothing.Herostratus 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. "Resolved"ing this one too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not still a Burba, not yet a Grognard


I believe that there is quite some jump between Burba and Grogrard. I propose a new service award for editors contributing 3 months and 1000 edits. I do not yet have a name for it. Anyone agree with me? Greeves (talk contribs) 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see any harm in it. If one of my above flexibility proposals were accepted, it could be worked in rather easily. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I used the terms "Apprentice" (which I'm not too crazy about, maybe someone can suggest a better term) and "Novato", which is Portugese for "Beginner", according to Babelfish; for images, a blue ribbon with no pips (no significance to the color, just picked at random) and a picture-book. Herostratus 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Some people like these awards. Some do not. I would just say:

  • Users who find Service Awards silly, pointless, loathsome, or otherwise unpleasing are encouraged to not display them.
  • Users who find Service Awards silly, pointless, loathsome, or otherwise unpleasing are encouraged to disregard them if found on another editor's page.
  • But in neither case to interfere with others' enjoyment of them, thanks.

Herostratus 16:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Veteran" II-IV are a bit dull

The title repetition isn't very imaginative. Surely we can do better? What "sounds" like it belongs between "Veteran" and "Senior" without getting too militaristic? Some suggestions, in no particular order: Tenured, Professorial, Seasoned, Magna Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude, Accomplished, Consummate, Viruoso. (Also, Veteran could be moved up one or more notches, if needed.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How about
  • Veteran —> Veteran
  • Veteran II —> Seasoned Veteran
  • Veteran III —> Grizzled Veteran
  • Veteran IV —> Tenured Veteran
I left "veteran" as part of each because of the similarity in the badges. If that's not such a big deal, I'd propose
  • Veteran —> Seasoned
  • Veteran II —> Veteran
  • Veteran III —> Grizzled Veteran
  • Veteran IV —> Tenured
Mishatx *разговор* 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Veteran —> Seasoned Editor
  • Veteran II —> Veteran Editor
  • Veteran III —> Grizzled Veteran Editor
  • Veteran IV —> Tenured Editor

would work for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, too. Mishatx *разговор* 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we wait for Herostratus to come along, or should one of us just change it? *Mishatx*-In\Out 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the change but I think we should give Herostratus some more time to come along and comment. Johntex\talk 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, wait a while. There's not huge hurry or anything. :-). (But just to be clear: H. does not "control" this document; it is in "Wikipedia:" namespace now. I say this mainly so that it is on the record in case some crank in a month or five years would like to cite this talk page and say "I don't support Herostratus's candidancy because of WP:OWN issues." Our action delay for H.'s input should not be taken as anything but involved-editor courtesy.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 11:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, absolutely, I don't WP:OWN the page and this is a wiki, any editor can make any improvements they wish. However, it was nice of you to solicit my input. Here's what I think: I like it the way it is. I can't exactly put my finger on why... I'll try. There are basically two divisions, one with the small star and ribbon and one with the large star. In the first, the designation in the left-hand column changes with each level, and the badge is a ribbon with a small star; the ribbon changes color (and gains pips) but the star does not. In the second division, in the left-hand column, the designation does not change with each level (except toward the end); it remains some variation of "Veteran Editor"; the ribbon does not change (except to gain stars) but the main star does.

I guess what I'm thinking is that there the first division is a kind of preliminary division, with each level changing name, until one reaches the level of Veteran Editor, and (until one reaches the very highest levels) one stays at that level, with variations only in the numerical designation (I, II, III, etc.).

I dunno. It seems orderly and nice to me. But that's just my opinion.

Also... regarding "Grizzled" Veteran etc, remember that the left column is the formal version, as it were, so it should not seem too playful, in my opinion. The right column is of course a different matter. Herostratus 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, who cares what you think ;). No, I understood the consistency between those four levels and that's why my first proposal kept the word "veteran" in each one. I used "grizzled" because it gets used in semi-formal contexts quite a bit, and frankly I was out of adjectives. *Mishatx*-In\Out
I understand that reasoning too. I guess it auto-asks: Is the vet. consistency more important than differentiation, and is there some way to combine the two (perhaps by replacing "Veteran" with something else that lends itself to adjectives better)? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates for transclusion?

Resolved: Templates exist now.

I just wish I could translude these awards so I'd know when the title changed (like when "new" went to "novice"). Or am I missing something? *Mishatx*-In\Out 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Templating these things probably wouldn't be all that hard, though it might make customized use (see my user page) a tiny bit more difficult. Since probably no one is using the top levels yet, I would keep the templates as subpages of this page, to avoid "Template patrollers" who trawl the "Template:" namespace looking for disused templates to send to WP:TFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How to find your edit count


How do you know how many edits you have? - SeriousCat 09:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I found the tool. Sorry for asking this here - SeriousCat 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For other users' future reference, you can get a really great edit stats report here:
Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 10:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • One bit of edit count trivia that many may not be aware of: You can check your edit count by clicking on "preferences". This total is often higher than the wannabe_kate tool (or most other tools), because it includes any edits you have made that are deleted. (For example, if you tag an article for deletion, and it ends up being deleted, your edits to that article will no longer be counted in "external" tools, but will be counted in your own preferences count.) - Crockspot 13:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think the numbers are off-kilter

I think someone (who knows the user stats tools better than I do) needs to do some averaging of regularly active (not all) user stats to arrive at numbers that track length of service better. By the time I reach Veteran Editor I (in time served) I will easily have the edit count of a Veteran Editor IV, probably higher. And I'm not nearly as active as some users, esp. avid RCP participants. I realize the proposal I came up with up above somewhere was too complicated, but right now numbers are just kind of "off". Either the time requirements need to come downward for the higher "honors", or the edit count requirements need to go up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, some thoughts on that. First of all, remember that counting edits is considered to be a Very Bad Thing by many editors... so I guess the awards are primarily for length of service... the edit counts are mostly to make sure that the person has been an active editor... Also, a lot of editors don't do recent changes patrol etc, they are working on articles, hence their count might be lower. Suppose the level for Veteran Editor was raised to (say) 12,000 edits. Would you tell someone with 2 years service but "only" 11,000 edits that they are not qualified for that level. Herostratus 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the numbers for edits should probably be higher than they are now. I'll give two reasons. 1. Some users do have a lot of edits to there user space (I know there has been some debate on this before but I do think it's a significant point). 2. Some users (like myself) edit and then make another 2 or 3 subsequent edits to correct spelling and grammer errors (I think I've made 4 just putting this comment in), so even though I'm up over 4000 edits right now, in my heart I know it's probably closer to 1000 or so quality edits. Somebody who's not as conceitious or thoughtful as me is going to not care about such things and go by the base criteria.--Dr who1975 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Some people use preview and don't make grammar mistakes and typo's, and the same user's probably made only 5 edits to their user page. So no, the edit counts should not go higher. That's the disadvantage of generalizing an editor based on their editcount. Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... Im bad about using the preview function (it's like I'm worried my computer will crash and everything I've written will be lost if I don't save it immediatly... I'm working on being better about using it though). In any event, I wasn't advocating an across the board raise in the number of edits maybe just making Tutnum 10,000 and moving each of the other edit requirments down a level Novice 1000, Apprentice 2000, Journeyman 4000, Yeoman 6000, and Expert/Established 8000, this would progressively raise the floor and give newbies more to strive for.--Dr who1975 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside, a high userspace edit count doesn't mean anything at all, definitively speaking. Many editors appear to have spent a lot of time futzing around in their user pages when what they've actually being doing is building Good Article-class articles in their sandboxes before posting them to articlespace. Quite a few do that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh, novato

I'm not totally at peace with the title of "novato" for the second level, informal side. Reasons being (1) unlike the other titles on the informal side, it has a meaning that can be pretty easily discerned (2) It's really too close to the word "novice", which is a title for a different level on the formal side (3) It means "beginner, novice" so it shouldn't be at the second level when novice is really level one.

Not sure what if it's worthwhile to change it and what to change it to, but if it were to be changed some notions that come into my head are:

  1. Hodad. This is 1960's surfer slang for a "wannabe" surfer. Contraindication: not too many know this word, but those that do might find it demeaning to be labeled a wannabe
  2. Mank. A homophone of manque which is French for "wannabe". Contraindication: practically a loan word, it's used often enough that a few people will know its meaning, and ditto as above.
  3. Nubkin or Pipkin, which don't mean anything. Contraindication: pretty cutesy - maybe too cutesy. Herostratus 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I like "hodad". In the context of a skilled activity like surfing or skateboarding (where the term was also used) there is no effective difference between "wannabe" and "newbie"; indeed, the very label of "wannabe" is generally only a pretend-insult, the point of which is to spur the person so-labelled to develop their skill level and evolve out of that label's applicability. Been there, done that. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder...

...if it would be a good idea to add levels at 9 months, 1 1/4 year (15 months) and 1 3/4 year (21 months). On the formal side, this could be implemented by adding a dangly to the star or something, and adding "II" to the level name. On the informal side it would be harder... It's a bit of work to come up with new graphics and names... the informal side could just be left alone, or a "II" could be added without adding a new graphic... hm. Herostratus 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. The more levels there are, up to a point, the more use it will get. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Could we change the names? Tutnum and Grognard just sounds kinda silly. Also, can't we think up more names for the various veteran editor ranks? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Meh. The left hand column is supposed to be informal and maybe a little silly, so I dunno. As to veterna I-IV, I dunno... suggestions? Herostratus 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


This seems to be a functional duplicate of Wikipedia:Barnstars, so I've redirected it there. Please migrate your barnstars, etc, to that page. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with barnstars at all. Reverting your undiscussed, unilateral deletion. If you have an issue with this take it up at WP:MFD (again). — SMcCandlish 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The word to use isn't "unilateral", except insofar as all edits on a wiki, being necessarily performed by a single person, can be described as unilateral. I did not delete anything; rather I redirected the page to a page that seems to me to be functionally identical. It's an awards page and the awards here probably should all be listed on Wikipedia:Barnstars where they will be seen by all interested in making awars.
You say that this award page "has nothing to do with barnstars at all." Could you please explain this? --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you please stop describing good-faith edits by established editors as vandalism? I fail tos ee how this was designed to compromise the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tony on this one; quite frankly, I can't see any sort of need for this point. Furthermore, reverting a good-faith edit with the simple edit summary of 'rvv' runs contrary to WP:AGF, and while I don't think that a straight-out redirect was the smartest thing to do, I do believe Tony was acting in good faith. Veinor (talk to me) 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Seems like an awful lot of formality for, essentially, a superfluous process. Especially if it is supposed to be separate from the Barnstars. An odd area of the project to see instruction creep...why can't it be redirected to Barnstars? --InkSplotch 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice who did the page-blanking until after the fact; probably 25% of my WP time is spent reverting vandalism, and this looked very much like vandalism. I recognize of course that Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) is in fact an experienced editor. That said, defying a clear consensus to keep this page and keep it separate by blanking the page and redirecting it somewhere, without any discussion, doesn't strike me as constructive Wikipedianism. Nor does restoring his page-blanking simply to deliver a statement to someone who reverted him with an edit summary one disagrees with; user talk pages exist for a reason. — SMcCandlish 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Could we get beyond your evident shock at the idea that someone might actually edit this page? It's a wiki.
Now I've asked a question, the import of which was to ask you to explain how this page differs from Barnstars, simple graphical awards to be given by editors to one another. I won't badger you, but I would like to know why these are so different that they have to have their own page. --Tony Sidaway 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal doesn't really equate to an "edit", except in the most technical sense. Anyway, the question you ask has already been answered in great detail at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Service awards. The super-short version is that WP:SERVICE badges are not "given by editors to one another", they're auto-assigned, in essence. — SMcCandlish 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not proposing deletion, so the answer to my question won't be found on a deletion discussion. You say you think that this award page is not at all functionally identical to Wikipedia:Barnstars. Could you please, in your own words, explain this opinion? Then perhaps we can get somewhere. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I apologize more explicitly for the "Rvv" edit summary; as I said at your talk page, I was in the process of adding a "uw-delete" warning when I realized you were "someone"; I don't recall ever seeing a previously MfD-surviving projectpage being blanked and redirected, so it looked like vandalism. Nothing personal. Anyway, the MfD actually does cover the issue pretty well, as the "how is this any different from barnstars?" question arose there. But since you've asked for it, my personal summary would be that they serve completely different pruposes. WP:BARNSTAR is a list of awards in various categorizations that one editor can award to another editor. Last I looked, there were no exceptions at all, no overlap with other functions. WP:SERVICE templates are not of this nature. They are auto-assigned, simply for having completed a level of service to the encyclopedia. The only thing non-automated about it is that one has to add the template to one's own userpage (which is a good thing; some editors feel that any tracking of time or edits is a Bad Thing, leading to "editcountitis"; WP:SERVICE "medals" shouldn't be forced on them of course). They are like the short "years of service" bars many police uniforms have at the bottom left sleeve, as contrasted with rank on the upper part of both sleeves or on the lapels or epaulets (which I guess would be comparable to adminship/bureacratship), and meritorious service medals on the left breast pocket (comparable to barnstars, in a sense), to continue the metaphor. Putting WP:SERVICE templates on the barnstar page would be a lot like putting the "An article you wrote or signficantly contributed to..." templates for WP:GA, WP:FA and and WP:DYK on the barnstars page, along with other auto-assigned award-like user templates. The barnstars page simply doesn't serve a function that broad. I suppose an argument could be made that it should, but that should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Barnstars. —SMcCandlish 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I'm someone (I'm not). It's that you treated a pretty reasonable redirect edit as vandalism. But you've apologised and there's no issue there. It's over and in any case it was never a big deal for me. I don't mind if someone incorrectly calls one of my edit vandalism.
Your explanation is interesting. I didn't really understand, at first, that these were awards that one awards to oneself.
What value does a self-administered award have? Is there a "King of the wiki" award? --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have awarded myself the king of the wiki award on my user page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, since these honors are earned according to clear requirements I'd say they have more value then barnstars which have no standards. I think we've all seen cases where trolls, et al., have received barnstars for inexplicable reasons. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is to both Will and Tony: Will, well said (your edit summary really got it: WP:SERVICE's are earned not awarded.) Tony: I think that the difference is that a "King of the wiki" 'award' wouldn't have any rational criteria (with the possible exception of "I am Jimbo Wales and am the only qualifier for this badge" >;-) As for the rest (again to Tony) - that is about the size of it, and I apologize again for "Rvv"; it wasn't personally directed, just a rote action in a several-day span of reverting actual vandalism. That said: a) Yes, you are "someone"; I at least have seen and respected your edits (though I am fairly certain we have disagreed about something before, I don't remember what); you are not a random 11-year-old school IP address kid, but a recognized editor who has many many thousands of valued contributions. I had no intent to seem to be devaluing that. Was just triggerhappy (and a bit too defensive after having fired the shot; thus the strikethrough on my talk page). But b) I don't agree that the redirect was "pretty reasonable". If this page were two weeks old and never subject to community-wide discussion, I'd lean your way, but it's already been through an MfD that raised these issues, so the redir appeared to be disregarding consensus on the issue. But you don't really strike me as a "I know better than everyone else, so to hell with consensus" kind of person (and I hope I don't really strike you as "label edits I don't like as 'vandalism' just for the hell of it" kind of person). Just a misunderstanding. Back to Will: I don't think there's anything "inexplicable" about it: Disruptive editors' sockpuppets love to self-award "each other" barnstars in the hope that it makes them look less like what they are. The WP:SERVICE "medals" aren't immune to this either, though. I've seen at least one application of the top-level WP:SERVICE on the page of someone who isn't even 5% of the way there yet; his/her explanation when I asked about it was that the WP:SERVICEs were "stupid and pointless" or something to that effect. Paraphrasing, not directly quoting; I don't recall the user name, though I suspect that whatlinkshere would turn it up unless the user has changed heart. That change is actually possible, because I introduced a new line-item in WP:POINT to address that (and it's stuck for about two months, so I guess it was a good edit). To Tony's probable amusement, it is actually phrased in terms of barnstars not WP:SERVICEs. Heh. — SMcCandlish 09:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking more closely at these "awards", it appears that they're simply badges intended to give other editors a vague idea of how many edits one has performed, and how long one has edited Wikipedia.
I also notice that there appear to be no transclusions of the awards higher than SA-veteran/SA-tutnum, and that the sole holder of the awards at that level has both on his page but doesn't seem to be "entitled" to it, having started editing only eighteen months ago. There is one single holder of the next level down (grognardextraordinary) and no holders of the level beneath that and one holder of "Journeyman", the level beneath that. One editor sports an "Apprentice" badge and no editors sport the lowest level, "Novice/burba". This is really puzzling. Am I counting them correctly? There appear to be fewer instances of these "awards" being transcluded than there are awards! --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that the directions say that subst should be used, so transclusions will not show up in many cases. A search would need to be performed to see how many people use these. DES (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Or one can check the usage of each image, as AFAIK they are only used for this purpose. Image:Wikipedia book.jpg, for instance, is used by ~10 users. Λυδαcιτγ 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Right. For "Experienced and Established Editor (or Grognard Extraordinary)" there are ~50 users, of one version of it or another. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is this?

Resolved: Issues are already addressed by available options, or cannot be addressed here.
Barnstar rib.png

Just wondering... Not opposing/supporting. Is this like scouting service stars? In scouting you'd earn a serivce star for being a member. Doesn't matter if you are hyper or inactive. -- Cat chi? 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's not like scouting service stars then, because you have to have a certain number of edits as well as time in harness. Herostratus 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I dislike awarding myself things. So I wouldn't oppose being awarded these... I am also a bit concerned about the ribbons. I'd prefer to have Image:Barnstar rib.png sized awards.
Its difficult for me to imagine an appropriate meaning for the term "concerned" in this context. I too prefer to have barnstar-sized awards; that's why we have those as options. If you don't like ribbons at all, take that up at WP:RIBBON; this is not the right venue for such issues. Lastly, you don't have to award yourself these things; this is why the awards' documentation says it is perfectly fine to award them to others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Requirements too hindring, too lax, or unbalanced?

I may not be the only one to complain, but I am an experienced and established editor, but as per the requirements, I would only be able to display the Apprentice editor badge. Any compromises? ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Why? If you are an an experienced and established editor why cannot you display that badge? Herostratus 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not fulfill the time of servitude requirement for that badge. :( ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, think of it this way: the badges are as much for time in harness than anything, with the edit counts just being to assure a reasonably high level of participation during the time. Sorry. This is partly for good reasons (there's a difference between tearing off a ton of edits in a short time and having spent a lot of calendar time absorbing the project) and partly for bad reasons (anything that smaks of "editcountitis" draws the wrathful attention of the "Editcountitis! Unclean! TABOO BWANA!" Brigade. Herostratus 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed (that they will come out the woodwork; I don't agree with their point of view; I think edit counts as reported by the "wannabe-kate" tool are in fact very, very instructive as to an editor's nature. You can rapidly tell the encyclopedia improvers from the wikipoliticians from the user page e-masturbators from the chatters from the people who have a genuine balance in the wiktivities and wikontributions.) That acknowleged, I think that the S.A.'s are safe from MfD for some time, and think that the issue expressed above (and I think further above you proposed some intermediate "grades" yourself, perhaps in response to my one-night forays into mathematical proposals.) There does seem to be a genuine issue here. At my rate, I will likely hit the edit count required for Master Editor/Complete and Perfect Tutnum (i.e., top level), long before my time commitment reaches even Veteran Editor II/Grand Tutnum level, and I'm by no means an exessively active editor. Last week I almost completely ignored Wikipedia for about 4 or 5 days. I don't think I'm rare in level of involvement. With nominally millions of users, and more realistically probably 10,000+ committed regular editors and say may be 1000 "junkies", I'm probably classifiable as "wikilazy, but prone to bouts of a day's worth of activity every few weeks". Hardly "notable".
So, I still think the numbers are off. The fact that I was a hard-core Boy Scout (think: earning merit badges) way back in the day probably predisposes me to seek for the top on some level, but it also makes me keenly aware of balance with regard to time committed vs. effort expended (the Boy Scouts really have this balance down-pat, and their "ranks" work the same way - they require both achievements and time), and I think we're a little bit off-kilter here.
Here's why: A committed editor will easily reach the number requirements early and just sort of "sit around" (not literally, of course; I mean "be forced to wait, in this particular context", and meanwhile continue doing good wikistuff; but... perhaps even forget about all of this while the requiste 8 months pass. There is no incentive at all, basically, to serious editors. By very stark contrast, and insufficiently-involved but long term editors, the "dilletantes", the professionals who take a little time out from their busy schedules, the geeky kids who mostly try to get along and "be cool", but "secretly" get into WP for an hour every night instead of watching wrestling shows like their quasi-friends, etc., will all eventually reach a time-committment milestone, but be short on edits. This gives them a strong (in-context, anyway) incentive. "Oh, dang, I'm short 2,000 edits! Maybe I won't spend all weekend wasting time playing Final Fantasy MCXXVII after all..." That is, there is something they can do about it, vs. twiddling their thumbs while the clock ticks. The Boy Scouts use this natural imbalance of time vs effort to great effect. It's technically possible to beome an Eagle Scout by one's 14th's birthday. I've only ever met one who did, pretty much the most motivated freak I've ever met; heh. Most never do at all, and those that do get there just before they turn 18 (the cutoff date, not counting a loophole I won't go into here). It's the effort to achieve things, to do community service, to organize community service, that is the hard part (i.e. the editing, in our context), vs. just being a member and showing up for the weekly meetings and going camping every other month with your $10 dues (hell, it's probably $50 now!).
It's all about incentives toward actually attainable but challenging goals that make one go beyond one's own self-interest. The "prize" (badge, honor of being called an Eagle Scout or Master Editor or whatever) are sentimentally and honrorifically tokenized symbols/substitutes for the sacrifies/time/effort/danger/whatever - the "coin" in exchange for the human "expense" or "risk"/"gamble". The military gives out medals and ribbons, with bands and ceremonies and salutes and handshakes with the President (Prime Minister, Premier, Emperor, whatever) for a very, very good (psychological) reason.

The "Editcountitis!" complainants

I think a lot can be learned from from Scouting model. Some will say "Aigh! Editcountis! <sound type='coughing up own skull' />" But oh well. Have a look at the MfD. The postive votes landslided the editcountitis whiners. The term has become abused, and so is losing its veracity and force. The original (well, original when I arrived; I can't speak as to what was going on in 2002!) concept of editcountitis was obsession (and competitiveness, no longer an issue with umpteen-zillion editors these days) with regard to edit counts to the extent that one would go around making pointless, twiddling edits that did not improve the encyclopedia, or even sit around in one's own userspace futzing with single-character "edits" again and again to boost stats (the wannabe-kate tool thwarts at least the second half of that equation now). Today it seems to mean "You actually know approximately what your edit count is! Editcountitis!" Or "I secretly checked, and you have 7x more edits than me in half the time. Editcountitis! <grumble> You probably have bigger boobs/a bigger penis [as applicable] than me too... <sulk>". Or (far more rationally), "Just because you have 12,721 edits does not mean you'll make a good admin, especially since you attacked 14 people yesterday and breached WP:3RR, and I see 4 hits in your block log; looks like most of your 'edits' are you engaging in flamewars on talk pages, since your mainspace edits are only around 2300, and your wikipedia-namespace edits are under 200, templates only 37". There are genuinely applicable interpretations of "editcountitis", like overreliance on edit counts in RfA, but there are lots of nonsense ones, which seem to be outweighing the sensible ones, such as sour-grapes, inverted competitiveness, irrational insistence that one's own metapedian priorities automatically mean that someone else's milestone-oriented exopedian goals are somehow invalid, and so forth. The MfD last week (or so) was very instructive. The cries of "Editcountitis" had something of the ring of faith or fanaticism to them. Another point worth noting is that even in WP:RFA where this term is bandied-about the most, one of the main effective pass/fail criteria remains edit counts! No matter how much "Editcountitis!" is shouted. It even came up in my RfA, only 2 months ago; I was criticized, rather strenously, for have a low-ish edit count for a 1.3-or-so year editor, who "only seemed to have been seriously active for the last four months" or something like that. This was from a long-time admin (and predictably resulted in some "me to!" oppose-votes). People crying "Editcountitis!" are a minority from what I can tell, just a noisome one (and yes, I am well aware that that word does not mean "noisy"; the pun was intended).

Apologies for the length of this, but I'm basically doing a brain dump of arguments about the inevitable eventual 2nd MfD. Many of these points are probably worth saving as ammo against XfD "addicts" who are here primarily to attack and delete that which doesn't strike their fancy (they're readily identifiable with Special:Contributions; anyone who has "contributed" to more than 100 XfDs in one week, or who has more than a 1:10 ratio of XfD v. everything-else involvement here...) While (in my view and memory) "XfDitis" was virtually a wikidemic ca. Nov. 2006, it does seem to be abating. Nevertheless there remain many "hyperdeletionists" out there, so expect them to return.

But what to do about balance and realism in Today's Wikipedia?

Anyway, to get back to the original points I mean to raise, I think the editorial requirements should be doubled and the time requirements halved (not to put too fine a point on it :-) From my experience in dealing with WP:ATT, WP:N, and other highly "politicized" internal areas of WP, it's become very clear that the absolutely most influential admins at present are about 1.8 to 2.5 years "wiki-old", with a handful in the 3 to 3.5 range. At admin level at all, they are unlikely to give a hoot about thes service badges. A 5-year requirement is just pointless. There practically are no 5-year editors, in any cognizable sense of the term. At this point they either have (or did but have left) jobs with the Foundation, have abandoned WP because the culture has changed too much for them (and will continue to do so, because the culture keeps changing), are ArbCom members or Bureacrats or even higher up the administrative chain, are Jimbo Wales, are distanced but check in once a month just to see that all hell hasn't broken lose, or check in once a month to shepherd the one article they continue to care about, or they concern themselves with nothing but internal processes. No one in any of those categories could give a damn about Wikipedia:Service awards. I mean, really. Given the nature of the service awards, I suspect that you (Herostratus, I mean) come from a military background. The time scale makes sense there (and is even "easy", in that context). Here it doesn't. The burn-out rate is just mindblowing. Most potential wikipedians "wash out" in a month. The rest get "killed in action" within a year. And the majority of the rest are quite happy to take an "honorable discharge" after a few "tours of duty". This is gruelling, stressful stuff. We don't have to run through the jungle, we have to "think" through it, which is a different but equally challenging task.

I'd like to WP:BOLDly suggest that aside from doubling (or at least roughly doubling; throw a bone to the noobs) the editorial requirements, that Master be within reach at 2 years. Or 2.5 at most. But by 2.5, most editors of that level of commitment and involvment seem to already be spending their time on the mailing list interacting with J.W. and the rest of the Foundation people and the "hardcore" admins, not just participating in but effectively running internal processess like the XfDs or the vandalism irc channels or the Signpost, being botmasters who spend more time fine tuning their bots and hardly every making personal edits other than to respond to issues about their bots, working on new policies/guidelines, running mediation/arbitration "organizations", etc., etc., etc. I.e., they are not Boy Scouts any longer. A "merit badge" is meaningless to them. They're the wikuivalent of Sentators/Ministers of Parliament, CEOs, Executive Directors of major nonprofits, Brigadier Generals in the VandalWars, top sportspeople, etc. They've graduated way beyond anything this quasi-WikiProject can offer them.

Who Wikipedia:Service awards can actually (and can really only be expected to) appeal to and benefit/inspire are those who are still quite a ways off from that "not just an editor anymore" threshold. The builders, not the architects. I'm asking you to sleep on it and see about completely re-thinking the nature/intent of this, to be more narrowly focused on engendering action from those not quite involved enough. (To the extent that the highly-involved may achieve the top "Master" honors, what that really does is inspire action from the Burba. "Oh, there's already 200 Masters! I can be one too if I push!" The fact that, presently, Master is unattainable except by those who will laugh at it, is (aside from being highly ironic in an almost Zen or Taoist sense, and perhaps appropriate on a certain level if one is seeking Enlightenment) rather detrimental to the point (or at least the pragmatic/obvious side of the point, if the koan nature of the conundrum were intentional.) For most, there is no perceived point in (ergo not action toward) seeking that which cannot plausibly be reached.

Again, sorry for the length of this. I've been trying (and perhaps this is a bad idea, but I'm tired!) to simultaneously lay out ways for this quasi-project to be more effective, and to ancipate more attacks on it and pre-load the ammo to fend those off. Probably kind of a silly combination, but at dark:30 I get rather stream-of-consciousness.

SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, a cogent and interesting essay.

You are probably correct, that the numbers are out of whack. I actually had the edit numbers 20% higher originally, then toned them down. I spend what I thought was an inordinate amount of time on Wikipedia, and I thought I must be off the curve in terms of edits/time, but not at all.

One point is, it's impossible to get it "right" for everyone. The ideal situation is where an editor finds that he is passing the edit requirements and the time requirements at near to the same time. Obviously we can't make it right for everyone, we can just find a good average. But as you say, if you are short of edits, at least you can do something about it. Indeed, it would be ideal if people were thus motivated to increase their edit count, as you point out.

The problem of the No Fun Brigade coming up over the ridgeline with a mass yell of "EDITCOUNTIIIIITIS! KILL KILL KILL!" is never go going to go away. But one can't worry about that too much. You can't spend too much energy worrying about what other people might do. (As you point out, there are cases where editcountitis could be a problem, but many people have trouble separating these out.)

So I agree that the edit numbers should go up.

One problem is, of course, the people who already have awards. They would each have to be checked and if necessary bumped down a level. This should only take a couple-few manhours, though. So that's not a big deal.

As to there being few if any five-year editors and all that. You make your point well, but I'm not sure I agree. I don't know. The project is only about five years old. It will presumably go on for quite a few more years, so it will probably pick some up. The service awards were designed to be valid if the project lasts another ten years or more, that is why the upper levels are so difficult. Also, the very highest level should be very hard to attain... it remains a goal in the distance but one that is seldom actually achieved... like the Medal of Honor or Field Marshall rank or whatever. Herostratus 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all of that, other than I still think the 5 year deal is a bit much. But oh well. As for the people who already have the awards, I'd just leave them be, since it'd be us changing the conditions and no failing of their own. "Grandfather" them as is, basically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


So what, specifically, are people's ideas about what the requirements should be for the levels? Here are the current values:

  • Novice - 1 month, 200 edits
  • Apprentice - 3 months, 1000 edits
  • Journeyman - 6 months, 2000 edits
  • Yeoman - 1 year, 4000 edits
  • Exp. & Est. - 1.5 years, 6000 edits
  • Veteran - 2 years, 8000 edits
  • Veteran II - 2.5 years, 12000 edits
  • Veteran III - 3 years, 16000 edits
  • Veteran IV - 3.5 years, 20000 edits
  • Senior - 4 years, 24000 edits
  • Master - 5 years, 40000 edits

I guess maybe I was thinking of something like increasing the edit levels by (only) 50%, giving this:

  • Novice - 1 month, 200 edits
  • Apprentice - 3 months, 1000 edits
  • Journeyman - 6 months, 3000 edits
  • Yeoman - 1 year, 6000 edits
  • Exp. & Est. - 1.5 years, 9000 edits
  • Veteran - 2 years, 12000 edits
  • Veteran II - 2.5 years, 18000 edits
  • Veteran III - 3 years, 24000 edits
  • Veteran IV - 3.5 years, 30000 edits
  • Senior - 4 years, 36000 edits
  • Master - 5 years, 40000 edits

Maybe they should be doubled, I don't know. I don't want it to be too hard. Also I am not addressing the question of whether the upper levels should be collapsed down and made shorter (in time required). I want the service awards to still make sense ten years from now, so I don't think I agree with that right now. Herostratus 06:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, but would go farther: That would be an improvement (though note that the Master count didn't go up and is now almost the same as Senior; should be 60000?). I'd lean toward simply doubling them, but I'm not going to "fight" about it.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The edit counts are only here to make sure that the recipient was somewhat active during the period of time that they spent on Wikipedia. They are fine as-is. Greeves (talk contribs reviews) 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: On what basis? Please clarify. I've provided a rather massive rationale above for increasing these numbers; simply declaring disagreement doesn't make a substantive argument. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been active on Wikipedia for years as a productive contributor, but my edit count is less than 3000. I use preview quite a lot, virtually never edit my username, and engage in revert wars as little as possible. I may not be the most active Wikipedian in the world, but I've been plenty active on a variety of topics, and I'd prefer to not feel disciminated against. The Jade Knight 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Any leveling system of will have problems. This one is based on edit count, and discriminates against users such as yourself. No system is perfect; this one is good - please don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Λυδαcιτγ 04:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I've been on Wikipedia for two years and have just now gotten to 4000 edits. To ME, I feel "held back" as it were: I don't feel that I could contribute any faster to WP, in regards to more edits per day. So right now I am a "Yeoman/M.E. Grognard" editor by edit count when my length of service could title me as a "Tutnum/Veteran." I understand that both are important for this kind of a recognition... but I see the opposite of y'all, I think, in that the edit count level is too high for length of service. —ScouterSig 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I've been contributing to Wiki for more than a year, but I have just short of 800 edits('Course I also have a life outside of WP).--Lyricmac 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious ribbon problem

Resolved: Moot point; original commentor was mistaken.

The brown ribbon has to change; that ribbon is already used at WP:RIBBON for the basic/original barnstar! This problem may affect other ribbons here as well; I didn't check that far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which brown ribbon? The only one I see has a grey dot in it so doesn't that make it different? Herostratus 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind! I was responding to the one above, on the talk page. Oops. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What about bots

Are there bot awards too? -- Tawker 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bots recieve the same awards as humans. Just look at User:MartinBot. Speaking of which, are there any masters on Wikipedia. I see a whole lot of Journeymen and apprentices. Marlith 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

insulting stars

Guys... .you cant call some computer text editing award 'the Bronze Star'. Thats like saying if your article gets deleted, you should get a 'purple heart'. its just insulting to people who actually have a bronze star, which requires them to commit an act of heorism in the face of an armed enemy combatant in a war.

That's right! There should not be any medals and stars in WP at all. (I am serious.) The list can stay, though, but only with the templates (Those things in the right column). Dc76\talk 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

tags of awards way way too close to nazi nomenclature

You have named your tags 'sa-blahblah'.. which is great except that it closely resembles the hierarchy of titles within the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi storm trooper organization... which had titles like SA-Gruppenfuhrer, SA-Scharfuhrer, and so forth. It led to the SS titles, like SS-ObergruppenFuhrer, the rank of Reinhard Heydrich, major author of the Holocaust.

Actaully, I was going first to remark that it corresponds to the NATO nomenclature. But that perhaps because I am totally ignorant of the SS one. I noticed that if you start with a Second Lieutenant, and go on with Lieutenant, Caiptan, Major, Lieutenant-Colonel, Colonel, you get to the stars just on time: General (1 star), Major-General (2 stars), Lieutenant-General (3-stars), Full General (4-stars) and the maximum 5-star General available only during war (in our case only if the person is crazy enough to forget about anything on earth but Wikipedia). I like very much the badges. The stars are stupid, IMHO. Dc76\talk 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Smaller ribbons

I really think it would be better if there were smaller alternatives to the later ribbons which are longer in length than the first ones. -- Cat chi? 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I was thinking along the lines of ribbons for honours (eg knighthoods) being twice as long as ribbons for campaign and gallantry medals when I made them up, and it's because the "medals" for the later awards reminded me of knighthoods that I made the ribbons like that. If you would like me to make short versions talk to me on my talk page and I will. A1octopus (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It would make more sense for these ribbons all to be the same length as the barnstar ribbons. Also, the colors are pale. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the length should be the same. I think it'd be really great to be able to put them together on user pages in the same way as a set of ribbons in the armed forces. Brianreading (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Transparent medals

I am inclined to use medals with transparent bg. Would it be possible for User:Herostratus upload transparent versions to commons? (please upload freely licensed images to commons rather than en) -- Cat chi? 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How long is service

Is service how long you have really been editing, 2 moths for me, or when you joined Wikipedia, 5 months for me.Blacksmith2 talkEditor Review 07:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think when you made your first edit. But it could be when you joined. Phgao 06:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i did make a few edits when i joined, but they really only picked up in juneBlacksmith talk 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Master

Soon we are going to have many Master Class Editors and we should have a new service awards to people who have gone beyond Master Class. (Speaking of which, Are there any Master classes here?)Marlith T/C 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, if you have suggestions feel free to give them. Phgao 06:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
How does God-King sound to you? Marlith T/C 19:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That will be directly offensive to most religious people (of whatever demonination), and be good grounds for WP:TFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Grand Master should do the trick. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope the Masons don't have a copyright on this. Dr.K. (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
At this writing, only Ed Poor has claimed his Master Class. I'm having problems with the editcount tool (it keeps timing out with an incomplete total from Jan 2004), but Maveric149, TUF-KAT, Michael Hardy, Bryan Derksen are definitely eligible (they were already here when I was a newbie). Stan Shebs and Angela are a few months shy of their awards. I have the years for a Master, but the edits to qualify only for Senior class. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those "religious types" (though I consider my faith a relationship with God, not a religion) and I find the "god-king" idea humorous. It would be quite funny and I would consider it satire. Saksjn (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely take offense. This is blasphemy against God.
Personally, I think it would be neat to say that this is simply the beginning of editing-- Once you reach Master status, you begin a new journey. It's like beating a game, and moving on to the sequel.
Titles in this "master editor series" might include colors (like in karate), elements (fire/water/ice/etc), names of animals (monkey/lion/bear/snake/etc, or even following a pattern, like guppy/carp/shark/etc), or possibly even make up some words for titles, like they usually do in fiction. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What edits do count

Do all edits on all wikis a user makes count or only the edits he makes on the English wiki? Just wondering what will happen if a user i.e. has 2000 edits there, 2000 edits somewhere else and another let's say 1000 edits on the English wiki. Does he than have 5000 edits and is eligible for the Yeoman Editor Award or do only the 1000 English wiki edits count and thus he is an apprentice editor??? --noclador 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is only on the english wikipedia. Phgao 06:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Can we make categories for each rank and have the templates auto-add the users to those categories? Cause I was just thinking I'd like to see how many users are of each rank, but there's no way to see that right now.

Equazcionargue/improves14:54, 10/2/2007
I'm gonna go ahead and implement this. If anyone has any objections let me know.
Equazcionargue/improves16:42, 10/2/2007
All done. See Category:Editors with service awards for the current listing. Keep in mind that it won't include current award holders that haven't replaced their awards yet since the categorization, since people have mostly subst'd these templates. If you've already got an award posted on your user page via the "subst" method, you'll need to delete it and re-post it in order to become part of the category.
Equazcionargue/improves17:12, 10/2/2007


User:DBD/Userboxes/Wikipedia has these converted to user boxes , should we add these to this pageBlacksmith talk 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Those look pretty good, yeah.
Equazcionargue/improves18:24, 10/10/2007
Equazcionargue/improves21:10, 10/10/2007
So, why were they copied (to the Template space, nonetheless, which is against the userbox migration policy!), and was I not contacted when they were? Just slightly miffed – I'd prefer my creations remain in my space... But also, wow, cheers! DBD 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Not all userboxes have to live in userspace; since these are tied to a mini-project that has already survived WP:TFD, I think they'd be okay here. I doubt anyone would object if you briefly blanked the copies and replaced them with {{db-move}} and an HTML comment pointing to this discussion, then moved your originals over the copies; that way your creation and other edit history on them would be preserved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories up for deletion

Resolved: Categories deleted.

The categories for these awards are up for deletion. All are welcome to participate in the discussion.

Equazcionargue/improves04:10, 10/16/2007
Now the userboxes look like crap. Fix them! Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've removed the red links from EVERYTHING. One thing I forgot to do (D'OH!), was remove the Categories tags from every userbox. If anyone is against me doing this, say something before I do it. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 06:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I fixed EVERYTHING. Red links are gone and have been turned into bold font, categories that were deleted, but were still in the templates are gone, everything's fixed up. Please contact me via my talk page if there are any problems. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

New image needed for Grognard Extraordinary

Image:Wikipedia book.jpg has been deleted. I've created a placeholder image but my graphic design skills aren't up to much - hopefully someone else can replace it with a decent one sometime soon :-). WjBscribe 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the original raw PNG/PSD for that? If so can you upload it as well? It'll be easier to work on. Thanks.
Equazcionargue/improves05:42, 10/16/2007
My starting point was Image:Dante Alighieri-Das Neue Le.jpg if you want to work from that. I just played about with it a bit in a photo editor... WjBscribe 13:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded my version, which I'm sure can still be improved upon.
Equazcionargue/improves09:29, 10/21/2007

I am amused

I'd be an Apprentice if you count my edits and a Master Editor if you count my years of service. Dreamyshade 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I have a similar problem, only the other way around :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lining up the service badges

Is there anyway to make the service badges line up across the page instead of vertically. See my userpage for what I want to change it from. Mbisanz (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a table. But you are aware that displaying these awards cumulatively is somewhat unusual? In almost all cases, one displays only one's current level... DBD 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point, though I have seen users with multiple bars, not badges. Mbisanz (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Time and number of edits mismatch

As a 3-year old editor with over 60k edits I have a few problems with that list :) With Master award being 5-years but only 40k edits I'd say it overvaluates time and undervaluates edits :) Perhaps it could be split into lenght and no of edits, with two seprate awards connected on some level, for example (brainstorming) we could create a color scheme that would be used for lenght of stay? And ummm, yes, 40k edits is way not enough for the top award... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, for a 3 year-old, you sure do express yourself well.
Equazcion /C 02:48, 12/24/2007


Is there anything for five months & 6000+ edits, apart from, er, perhaps Zopiclone or Mogadon? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's also Valium, Barbital, Social interaction, and Sex. Equazcion /C 03:07, 12/26/2007


While there is no formal division between veterans and new users outside of administrator privileges, veteran users often have some informal authority due to their experience. Λυδαcιτγ 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not called authority, it's called respect. Equazcion /C 05:46, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Plus when authority is informal it really does not exist. It only exists in the mind of the beholder, (much like beauty). It does not even cover the cases of experienced editors returning under new names. Dr.K. (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of edits

Is it going on solely Mainspace edits or on the Edit Total? I'm simply asking as there is rather a gap between mine, possibly due to me participating in AFDs. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the total number, no matter where they were made. Dr.K. (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me. A new service medal my way comes HIYO! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 07:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Anytime. Congratulations by the way. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Take too long to earn

They take way too long to earn. I mean, I have 4,850 edits and I could only earn the journeyman badge today. That's more than twice the requirement. I suggest making it say "X number of edits or X number of months service" rather than "X number of edits and X number of months service". Woould be much better :-)--Phoenix-wiki 14:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying the opposite. I've been here for a year and a half and log on every day. I only have about 860 edits even though I edit every day. Saksjn (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the time is important. This way you are encouraged to stay an editor for a longer period of time. In my case, I was a member for well over two years before I really got into editing, so I'm having a hayday changing my medals these past 4,200 edits. Number of edits doesn't mean only shows you contribute a lot. The amount of time you've spent here really makes you a more valuable editor, and these are the editors we want holding medals. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


The term novice is a bit belittling, and a bit awkward for a badge. I suggest the term be changed from novice to something a little more encouraging. Here are a few suggestions: Tyro, Protégé, Apprentice, Recruit, Novitiate. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do strongly agree with you. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we assume that Novice editors don't know Latin? Because Novitiate is novice in Latin. Dr.K. (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll get at least one person in this list and that's me. :-p -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with a another name.... Apprentice sounds good. LanceBarber (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
But we already have Apprentice. I am however opposed to using Apprentice for any editor grade because the word carries a connotation of needing a mentor. That does a disservice to all these editors who, independently, learn the ropes without relying on a master craftsman/editor. Same goes for Protégé (too patronizing). Also Recruit (too militaristic plus Wikipedia is a voluntary project with no recruiting activities. Tyro sounds like Spyro (the video game). Dr.K. (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that Tyro could be confused with Tyra as in Tyra Banks. Dr.K. (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, bureaucrat is used on Wikipedia to describe something that it isn't exactly, so how about calling the new editors something that they aren't exactly. How about swashbuckler? vanguard? sleuth? barnstormer? (might be cool to give barnstormers a barnstar!) Kingturtle (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Especially Barnstormer captures ideally the way frosh editors can sometimes bust their way into the barn (Wikipedia). It also possesses energy and is action oriented. I really like it. Dr.K. (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, novice is kind of OK, after all these are pretty new editors. However, some of the other suggestions are fine too. But I think barnstormer is too informal for the left column, which is kind of the more straight, stuffy, formal terminology. "Recruit" strikes me as the best, maybe.Herostratus (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Awards are controversial as it is, (as proposed deletions and discussions in the past indicate). Changing from Novice (civilian) to Recruit (military terminology) will make this grade even less accessible and more controversial. Plus it will impart an air of recruiting to Wikipedia, which is simply not case. How about Initiate? Initiate denotes "new" but with respect to time not necessarily level of knowledge. Still the term is not perfect because it, unfortunately, has been linked to secret societies. --Dr.K. (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstormers were gutsy trailblazers in the sky. Such a term would be great for newcomers here. Kingturtle (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. Barnstormer is a term that doesn't have to sound stuffy like the other grades because it refers to new editors. It is refreshing and also playful as befits a new editor learning the ropes and trying the buttons in a new environment. So it could be included with the other grades without harming their value. I proposed Initiate because I was simply trying to find some consensus. Dr.K. (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much problem with 'Novice' as it is, but I very much like the name 'Barnstormer' for the newest editors. It seems an accurate description in more ways than one. :) (If it's seen as too informal, we could always switch to 'Initiate' or something equally bland and inoffensive.) Terraxos (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what I can dig up from Morrowind: Associate, Retainer, Oathman, Agent. How about Young and Eager? Or Beginner?
Most websites seem to use the term Beginner, Newbie, or Rookie. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


The requiements say length of service and number of edits. Can we change this to and/or? What if there is a user that has done so much edits, but little years of service. We have to recongnize that editor.--Nothing444 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This question has been raised before. The current combination seems to be a compromise. There are also long time editors with few edits who also deserve recognition. I think this is some kind of ballpark figure average. Others have raised the point that the years-number of edits figures don't increase linearly and sought to remedy this by decreasing the number of years for some of the higher grades but there is no consensus. Dr.K. (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So is it a yes or no?--Nothing444 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, currently it is no. Dr.K. (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, even as I'm going to hit 16,000 edits about 4 months before I hit 3 years I do think there is a correlation between both experience and edits. Lots of edits means you don't screw up much. Lots of time means your dedicated to the project. MBisanz talk 06:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As good and brief an analysis as I've seen to date. Dr.K. (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should change thisNothing444 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of edits means you don't screw up much? I don't see how that follows at all. Anyway, I think people who have both the time and the edit count under their belts deserve special recognition, but perhaps there could be other awards added for pure edit count or time alone. Until someone feels like creating those, though, anyone is really free to post whichever award they think they rightly deserve, despite the criteria specified here. This page isn't a policy. You can post a Master Editor award right now and no one can say anything about it. These are just for fun. They don't mean anything. They would mean even less if they were as easy to attain as you suggest. Equazcion /C 01:02, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

True. "Lots of edits mean you don't screw up much" doesn't mean too much, (except if you really did screw up too much you would normally be told to slow down and in some cases you could be discouraged from editing altogether through peer pressure). Any other explanation for the number of edits is not markedly better so just pick your favourite definition. Same goes for awards displayed. Choose your own criterion, fake or otherwise. Dr.K. (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Even though I did see in the discussion above somewhere that a few sticklers for details actually asked (harassed) editors about awards improperly displayed. Dr.K. (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that since this isn't a Wikipedia policy, users should just use discretion as I did. I have 26,785 edits at the time of this comment but only 1½ years' service. I'm using "Senior Editor" instead of "Experienced & Established Editor" which says 6,000 edits and 1½ years' service. I'm a lonnnnnng way from 6,000 edits. - ALLSTAR echo 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just find this amusing. I for one will not personally award myself a higher service award even though I meet the # of edits but not the time. Being here longer and being consistent (which I think is the key) has to count for something. I personally believe that edit counts are not a true reflection of an editor's value to the project. There are some amazing editors out there who have been here for years but are pretty much unheralded because of some low count. At the same time there are still editors out there who are a bit green on Wiki policy who have a huge count in which the majority of their time is spent on AWB, reverting vandalism, etc. Even I'm amazed how fast huggle is. Don't be in such a hurry to get a service award. What's the rush? It'll come. Now get back to editing! =) ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Λυδαcιτγ 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival states:

...we Wikipedians abhor the idea that the amount of time spent working on this website is any sort of indication of how well one can write an encyclopedia article. Indeed, we distinguish ourselves by our ability to write good articles, which is what really matters. We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect. Of course, sometimes how long someone has been here does bear on, for example, how well they understand Wikipedia policy and why Wikipedia works as it does. But it doesn't bear on much else.

Just to keep things in perspective. Kingturtle (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done over 4000 edits but haven't been here a year, can I still get the award?Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Current consensus: You haven't earned it, due to the time span. However, no one is stopping you. These are self-awarded. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 14:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What about my situation? I'm a bit confused at which one to use as well - I've been here 3 years (as of this month) but have about 6,400 edits. I don't think putting myself as a 1.5 year person is correct, but I also don't have the number of edits listed for Veteran Editor III (16,000) to justify that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually polices what awards users put on their pages. Make an honest choice. I'm sure it'll be okay. Kingturtle (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I too have this type of dilemma. In 3-4 months I will have been on Wikipedia for 2 years, and I'm only at 570 edits. I prefer edit quality over edit quantity, and awarding people for quantity is absurd. Most people who have these high post counts and on for a short while are simply making lots of quick edits instead of the edits that truely count. There is NO way a person can make over 25,000 true edits in the span of a few months. That is impossible. What really matters is the quality of edits and the ammount of experience you have. Now, no one can judge what amount of experience you have unless you show that you have none. However, the number of years normally represents this, because the longer they've been on Wikipedia, the more they've experienced other editors, situations in which they learn from, and the more they've learned about the policies that keep this site functioning. A change to this policy should be to have the amount of years of service to Wikipedia should be the first requisite to gain a service award. The amount of edits should be an optional requisite, not the main requirement.  Dylanlip  (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


I find it quite disturbing that the images for the lesser medal ribbons are apparently made from Soviet labor medals . Is wikipedia making a political statement here? I can has Red barnstar? MickMacNee (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually no, I made the lesser medal ribbon images form the lesser medal's ribbons (by cutting and pasting a section). A1octopus (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Shouldnt we have the option to choose between different designs? I'd quite like a Spanish style medal (C.1800) as they are rather glitzier than the aforementioned Sovietesque medals and much less likely to be made of scrap iron. JaneVannin (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh get over it guys! I don't like communism at all, but I see it as a parody, not an endorsement. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Bots

Some editors have incredible high edits in a very short time, for example 16.000 edits in 4 months! Subsequently they have the corresponding service award. Do they use bots to manage that? Is it allowed to boost the amount of edits with bots, and on merit of that claim your Service award? Demophon (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All edits are "allowed." The number of edits is mere raw data. Edits are edits. There is no direct correlation between number of edits and usefulness to Wikipedia or to an editor's importance. In 1970 Horace Clarke had 686 at bats (at the time the sixth highest amount in Major League history) but batted a meager .251. Kingturtle (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he means is it right to claim a service award when your edit count is the result of a bot rather than the effort of manual edits. I'd say no, but service awards are far from an official policy, so anyone is pretty much free to interpret and use them however they like. Equazcion /C 12:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no enforcement of Wikipedia:Service awards. They have official meaning. They hold no authority. They are self-granted and mean only what anyone wants them to mean. As far as I can tell, they are meant to be fun. Kingturtle (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphic designer needed

I'm looking for a skilled graphic designer.

I need an image for a non-barnstar Wikipedia award with the theme "World Traveler".

I was thinking perhaps the following image, without the barnstar, and with the globe (or another one) superimposed over the Wikipedia globe (or the Wikipedia globe superimposed over it) - I'd like to see the world's countries and the puzzle pieces (with the continents more prominent).

The image also needs a passport laying on the surface beneath the globe stand (where its shadow is, but the shadow should be retained as well). The image's background must be transparent (not white like the background of the image below).

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png

Is this something you can do?

If so, please contact me on my talk page.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate & Disrespectful

I find medals such Iron Editor Star inappropriate and completely disprespectful to the fighting men (and women) of many commonwealth, allied and other nations who lay down their lives so that we today may enjoy freedom. The Barnstar on its own is somewhat acceptable, but the use of these military decorations, many of which are given posthumously, for something like wikipedia editing shows the utmost disrespect. Sincerely, (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

How? There's barely any direct militaristic themes in them. Just because medals and such are commonly associated with such themes doesn't mean they are automatically associated with the military where/whenever they happen to be used. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
First off, you are calling things 'Bronze Star' and 'Iron Star', which are real names used in real militaries to honor real people who risked their real lives. If you want it to be 'non militaristic', then at least name it something else. Like the 'Tired Eyeballs' star, or 'Carpal Tunnel Badge'. Second off, please tell me what other field of human endeavor awards 'stars' to people for sacrificing themselves? The olympics awards medals... but Im struggling to think of any organization that awards 'stars', other than the military. The whole concept is ridiculous, and the idea that a bunch of star awards have no military connection is equally ridiculous.. On top of that, there are a lot of editors who are probably doing it anonymously.. because they live in some 3rd world dictatorship that tries to track down wikipedia editors. They are the only ones on here really risking anything, but they arent going to get any of these dumb rewards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talkcontribs) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

education experience employment

education experience employment??other than just delete stuff with no background??I did not find anything. wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New level

We are getting alot of users with 5+ years of experience and with 40,000+ edits, I think we need a new level of some sort. Any ideas? MBisanz talk 20:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I count only 21 editors who have attained the highest rank, so I don't see any need for any higher rank yet. --Eustress (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I just had a look, & assuming Eustress's numbers are correct, only three editors who qualify for that rank have bothered to display it; far more editors with less than 200 edits have this "award" to their user page. I would be upset at these newbie's presumptions, if this "award" meant anything. Like a gift certificate at Amazon, or proof of insanity. -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Last year we had a discussion here on changing the term novice to something that was more interesting and exciting for newer users. One I idea was to call them Barnstormers instead of Novices. I'd like to re-open this dialog, and recommend the change. Any thoughts? Kingturtle (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "novice"? It's a common, easily understood word used to mean the same thing in many contexts. – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong is that a Novice also carries some pejorative meanings with it too. Novice carries with it some implications of powerless, in need of guidance - whereas something like Barnstormers has a sense of action and energy. Kingturtle (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been a "novice" at many things in my life -- oarsman and bridge-player to name but two -- and I have never felt "powerlessness". I have however felt "in need of guidance", and what's wrong with that? Most new editors do need guidance. "Barnstormers" also implies a sense of reckless abandon and derring-do that we probably don't want. How about "rookie"? – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "Rookie"? Just a possibility. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
“Novice” seems OK to me (as does "Rookie", although a bit of US terminology) – I have to agree that "barnstormer" does seem to me to imply some sort of recklessness. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have to request them?

Hello, this is my 250:th edit, I been in since october 2008, I wonder if you get them for yourself or, you have to request them? Gsmgm (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You qualify for Novice editor status. Just copy and paste the code for the award on your user page. --Eustress (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As it states on the page, these are to be self-awarded, so yah.. you can give them to yourself. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Description of levels needs clarification

The list of criteria for the various levels starts as follows:

Novice (or Burba) - 1 month, 200 edits

Apprentice (or Novato) - 3 months, 1000 edits

Journeyman (or Grognard) - 6 months, 2000 edits


But what is the connection between a) the editing level, b) the amount of time listed, and c) the number of edits listed? This is in serious need of clarification.Daqu (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It says nothing about your editing ability, just how long you've been around, no big deal really.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me try to be clearer: Does "1 month, 200 edits" mean both at least 1 month and at least 200 edits? Or at least 1 month or at least 200 edits? Or something else? Etc.
I'm not asking how big of a deal it is. And if it were only a matter of "how long you've been around", then it would not mention anything about the number of edits.Daqu (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It means "and". Anaxial (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I also found the article confusing on this point. Ncsaint (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, I didn't know if it was "and" or "or" I am going to change it to read 1 month and 200 edits, hope everyone is fine wiht this Mech Aaron (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


can we have an award between "Novice" and "Apprentice" ? i have 700+ edits and 10 months service Machete97 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What can be put there though? --♪♫The New Mikemoraltalkcontribs 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know - maybe another made up word. Should be at 500/550/750 edits ? Machete97 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
750 sound about right. Amateur maybe and Dilettante? --♪♫The New Mikemoraltalkcontribs 01:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If we need another award (and I really think we don't), don't call it the Dilettante. It doesn't fit with the others at all. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But what could the award be? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Not needed. 05:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one do you qualify for?

What if, for example, you have been editing for two years, but your edit count is 2000? Do you qualify for Journeyman, or for Veteran? The page doesn't really explain what to do in this circumstance.

BMRR (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think both requirements need to be met before you can put the award on your userpage. So in your scenario, the person qualifies for Journeyman only because s/he does not have the 6000 edit count for the Experienced & Established Editor award even if they have met the time requirement. Extremepro (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since these "awards" aren't official Wikipedia policy, it's up to you. I don't have 4 years (2 years, 7 months) but well over 24,000 edits (31,984 including deleted ones - 30,342 without deleted ones) so I have the Senior Editor on my page. - ALLST☆R echo 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that interpretation is supportable from the text or the discussions in the history of the talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Supportable by whom or what? It's not an official Wikipedia "award" or policy. With over 30,000 edit's, 50+ created articles, I'd don't think being here 4 years versus 2 years and 7 months any much different. I go by the edit count. 30,000+ edits with majority in article space doesn't say "Novice". - ALLST☆R echo 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion as you have already stated. You are certainly free to call yourself, say, a duck - but it doesn't mean the other ducks won't laugh at you. See the discussions in the talk archives to see the thought that went into these awards. Rmhermen (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil. ALLST☆R has a legitimate difference of opinion as to what constitutes experience. Casting aspersions on it is counterproductive. -moritheilTalk 08:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The ‘edit count’ that matters is the total, right? Just wondering because I have >1000 total edits but only ~400 article edits. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct it is the edit count not the number of article edits. RP459 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


How do you count your edit's? I tried "Jane's Tool" but it said my edit count was nil...-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As it says on the main page: You can get your edit count here (In case you have forgotten, this will also show you the date of your first edit (logged in with a real user account), or alternatively you can click my preferences and your edit count will appear there. (Although that number is slightly larger because it includes deleted contributions). - ALLST☆R echo 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! Just curious really.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem! :] - ALLST☆R echo 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


First of all this is silly. Second of all if you really want to have levels that mean something on this forum, oops encyclopedia, then the admins should determine them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How does it qualify as "cruft"? This isn't an article. Also, this is an entirely trivial and optional award system and needs no authoritative input from anyone. Wikipedia admins fulfil more the role of caretakers and/or arbitrators than that of an authority, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 03:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way of seeing a list of editors by number?

I was just wondering if there is a list to see who are the highest editors on Wikipedia? perhaps an automatic chart with highest editors.. it would be nice to see where you stand!!! just for the ego trip you understand.. Jez t e C 23:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

wp:EDITS covers the 4,000 most active editors ϢereSpielChequers 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Higher levels needed

I'm merely a Tutnum and two years and many edits away from the top level on this, but we need to extend the levels because currently it only goes up to 40,000 edits and four years service and we have editors well beyond that - including one on over 7 years and over 100,000 edits. So I'd like to propose the following additional levels:

Feel free to comment in each section: ϢereSpielChequers 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The levels are fine the way they are. There's a certain point where just adding more and more levels becomes absurd, especially when you have to reach for such lousy titles. I say we leave it as is. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
...Wikipedia hasn't even been around for 10 years yet. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this idea is ridiculous, certainly no more “ridiculous” than the awards that already exist. To be fair wikipedia will be around in 10 years time (probably 20, 30 years from now as well), so I can't really see the harm in it, but an equally good argument would be to wait until then. I've always thought the names were a bit silly, but the ones suggested below are no more "lousy" that the ones that already exist (i.m.o.). -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

5 years & 50,000 edits

Book The dusty tome Title Panjandrum.:

7.5 years and 75,000 edits

Book "The scrolls of the library of Alexandria", Title High Panjandrum

10 years and 100,000 edits

"The Brain implant" Title "Wikipedia offline Backup"


Use of the word "entitled" evokes a sense of entitlement, but length of service does not bring with it entitlement. Maybe a different word can be use. Kingturtle (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, what other word would you suggest? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It’s just a cute graphic. It doesn’t carry any authority with it. I don’t see any problem with saying we’re “entitled” to such a thing. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not fussed either way, but for Kingturtle benefit, perhaps "is entitled to” could be replace by "qualifies to". Incidentally, I don't really like the "&" symbol, is there some reason why "and" can't be used instead? -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tutnum is a made-up word?

I had no idea. It sounds so.. legitimate. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting I learned something new today. RP459 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Length of Service

I am guessing that length of service is measured from the earliest contribution to Wikipedia, even if during the earliest months there were only a few contributions to articles. Can someone confirm this?--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • You are correct. RP459 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


The captions for these need to be changed. First, I don't think there should be a comma before "and" (a Comma splice). Secondly, the ampersand should be spelled out. Bubba73 (talk), 02:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit count

The award should be owned by the user with the corresponding edits in wikipedia (english) only or by all the edits, also included in any other wikipedia or wikimedia sister project? - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . --  08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in here, not every project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Veteran Editor (or Tutnum) requirements

Current requirements are 8,000 edits and 2 years service.

If I have only 1 year's service but twice as many edits, would I still qualify? I'm thinking the edit amount would cancel out the lacking length of service and bring it into balance. Going by edit count, I actually qualify for Veteran Editor II (or Grand Tutnum) but I don't have 2 and a half years service. -- œ 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See the section a few up, here and a section in the talk archives here. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should make a "frequently asked questions" page or something. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which service award should I choose?

I have been here since 2006, but I didn't do many edits until this April. I have 2,200 edits so far (not counting this one). Which one should I choose? Further information: Kayau (talk · contribs · logs) Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 10:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

this one BlindEagletalk~contribs 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)