Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trivializing and misuse of Awards

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was userfy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Trivializing and misuse of Awards


We have many editors who have not got barnstars what they deserved. This essay will discourage users to give barnstars freely. "Barnstar" is being taken too seriously here. I suggest to userify this essay! Tito Dutta (contact) 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the essay is to explain why awards shouldn't be handed out like candy, thus trivializing the same awards given to editors who have made great sacrifices of time and effort to get them. This essay is not a policy and editors are still free to give out awards for whatever reasons if they chose to do so. It only asks editors to use discretion and common sense when giving awards to other editors. The essay also encourages the use of Personal user awards as an alternative to giving away general awards for a few trivial edits. The purpose of the essay is to also bring more integrity to Wikipedia's award system. Editors are free to ignore these ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment above shows lack of understanding of Wikipedia barnstar for the following reasons—
 * WT:BARN: Please do not nominate users for awards here. Instead, please be bold and give an award to the user you have in mind using the templates listed on pages such as WP:*,.
 * The comment "the same awards given to editors who have made great sacrifices of time and effort to get them" is weird! Barnstar is not Nobel Prize. (see also: next point)
 * There are other ways to honour great sacrifices of time and effort like Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations, Adminship, honouring by Wikimedia office (this one is too good), Precious, Golden Editor and more...
 * This essay does not go very well with Wikipedia editor retention and Barnstar awarding team's ideal! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This essay does not go very well with Wikipedia editor retention and Barnstar awarding team's ideal! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * These comments are personal opinions. Apparently nominator is trying to justify certain awards he/she 'may' have received for trivial reasons and in reality wishes to have the essay deleted for personal reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack! Withdraw the comment! If searched it can be seen I have rejected barnstars multiple times an example (these barnstars are not added in my Awards page) --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have posted this discussion's link at WT:BARN --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but your opinions regarding a "lack of understanding" of barnstars, and that my comments are "weird", etc, was a direct personal attack. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying apparently and that you 'may' have received. Please be reminded that essays are simply the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". The last time I checked editors are free to do that. Again, all your comments are assumptions and personal opinions. If you have rejected barnstars given for trivial reasons, good for you. You should be in agreement with the essay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If read again The comment above shows lack of understanding of Wikipedia barnstar — i.e. "The comment above" not the editor! And that's the point of this MFD. If someone really wants to see changes in the processes, writing an essay will not help. Last year, I suggested at WT:BARN to create a centralized page for giving barnstar. Most of the editors even don't watch WP:BARN, they click on the "heart" icon at upper right corner of someone's talk page and give barnstars (you may have noticed "Original Barnstar i.e. the first barnstar in the list, is one of the most commonly given barnstar. One can suggest changes in the process at WP:VPP! But, in the current scenario, when giving barnstar is not barred, this essay is inappropriate. --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see this has devolved into an argument. I, for one, think this essay should be retained as is.  Gwillhickers, you created the essay in question and failed to mention your conflict of interest.  Your conduct towards Titdutta has been reprehensible.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : My conduct "reprehensible"?? You say you're sorry to see things devolve into an argument and then throw gas on the fire and launch your own personal attack in the same breath. -- I didn't initiate the direct personal attacks and made none, giving the benefit of the doubt, unlike you or Titdutta. What "conflict of interest" are you referring to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Chris troutman, the only misuse of barnstar I can think is giving a wrong barnstar to a wrong person! For example, you give me WikiProject Kenya barnstar, when I have done nothing there! This point is missing in the essay. The worse point is the essay highly depends on the idea "trivial work". This is controversial! Who's going to decide what's "trivial" and what's important? For example, suppose you went to Help Desk and saw someone's request to save their article nominated at AFD. You thoroughly copyedited it, added citations and saved it. Maximum 10 edits. Now, they gave you a barnstar in return. Now, will you call your work "trivial"? --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More personal opinions and strawmen. The essay is an opinion. If you don't agree with it, ignore it. Don't play the book burner and decide for other editors who may agree or disagree with it. The purpose of the essay is to ask editors to think a bit before handing out awards. "Who's going to decide what's "trivial" and what's important"?? Editors decide. Is that okay with you, sir? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is very controversial. If editors assess other editors' works, let them do it. An essay which attempts to make such assessment should be rejected immediately! For information, Wikipedia Project space essays often referred in discussions! I have no problem if a user writes a essay in his own userpage, but, after an edit like this, I have strong objection here! The essay has good value as a userpage essay, but, not in Wikipedia space. Correct channel should be followed, suggest changes at WP:VPP, WT:BARN. --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Very controversial" is yet another opinion. All you've done is attempt to prop up opinion with more opinion while accusing me of personal attacks when you've made direct personal attacks at me. There are scores of essays that are opinion, humorous, etc that exist in Wikipedia mainspace. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia essays before you make attempts to regulate them and the opinions of other editors. Have a nice day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor above is continuously doing personal attacks. I have attempted my best not to make any personal attack? Do you want to see what is personal attack? I can show you if you are interested! Let me know. --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you have over reacted from the beginning and have initiated direct personal attacks, referring to my comments as "weird", all the while you talk down to me accusing me for a "lack of understanding" -- and all because of an essay, like many others, that simply offers an opinion. Btw, the essay only echoes what the 'Barnstar' and 'Project Award' pages clearly say.
 * Barnstar : ...for hard work and due diligence
 * Barnstar : Please make sure that your choice is fair and appropriate, which will help prevent over-use.  (emphasis mine)
 * Project Awards :...for outstanding work on a WikiProject


 * IOW, these awards should not be not handed out for minor or trivial edits which is the basic theme of the essay and which only attempts to appeal to editor's sense of integrity. Once again, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia essays before making attempts to regulate them and the opinions of other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be informed, one more personal attack and I'll either stop posting here or report against you for continuous personal attack! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please address the discussion you initiated. Asking you to familiarize your self with essays is not a "personal attack", thank you. The essay in question reflects what the Barnstar and Project Award pages already ask of editors, as I have clearly outlined for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Crystal Clear action apply.png I have read the messages here. That's all for now!  --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Wikipedia essays giving advice -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Notwithstanding the scuttlebutt above, Essays should be hosted in the WP namespace if, and only if, they reflect the community's current attitude towards whatever topic is in question. I think the idea that "You people are giving out too many 'stars and you should rethink that" is a fine essay topic (and one with which I am inclined to agree) but is, perhaps, just on the wrong side of current community practices to be housed in WP:Space. Achowat (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy - I agree that the essay seems to be "on the wrong side of current community practices to be housed in WP:Space," not least of all because its existence at present creates the impression that the position argued is reflective of a community policy/practice that was developed with consensus and reflects broad sentiment. But that's just my opinion, based on what I experienced when I first discovered the essay and read it. Cheers. joepa T 20:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to above two comments: The purpose of the essay is to simply have would be award givers or receivers think a bit before handing out or receiving such awards. No harm in that. Again, the eassy only reflects what the barnstar and project award pages already asks of editors and simply makes an analohgy to those service men or women who have declined awards in recognition of those who have made great sacrifices to receive them. Essays are opinions. They don't necessarily go along with a particular group's opinion or common practice. From what I've seen, most awards are handed out for hard work, so it is quite debatable that there is a greater consensus to hand them out like candy. Even if consensus was divided 50-50 or 60-40, or whatever, this is not grounds to sweep an essay under the rug (confine it to a user page where it is destined to collect dust). Last, the banner on any essay clearly says it is an opinion of one or more editors. Specifically it says... Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints It doesn't say essays 'should not' be so. I don't know how anyone got the idea that an essay has to represent "the community's current attitude" to be in WP mainspace. If there was such a policy, it would defeat the purpose of the many essays that currently exist in WP mainspace. Please review Wikipedia essays and in particular the Acceptance of essays section there. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.