968:- Reading so many of the above comments saying there is "too much bureaucracy". But "too much bureaucracy" for what? Receiving community recognition? How is receiving community recognition a bad thing? You don't like the process? You think it's too much of a popularity contest? You don't think we "need" the award? There are similar awards? You wouldn't give one? You don't think you would receive one? What do any of these comments have to do with a group of Wikipedians giving awards to other Wikipedians,
808:. Mostly harmless but also useless since it's clear from this MfD that it doesn't have community acceptance. I can sort of understand the motivation, though. In practice RFA is the way we 'reward' good contributors for their service and it could possibly be helpful to have some sort of 'offical' reward for good contributors which doesn't have anything to do with admin tools. Apparently this isn't it.
306:. I'm all in favour of praising people, but this is totally unnecessary bureaucracy. It also has, by its own admission, "no particular requirements" which makes the fact that it is a vote rather than a discussion quite bizarre to me. Finally, participation on the page is very limited so it certainly isn't an opportunity for the "entire community to praise a user" as it claims to be.
994:, which is what this is, plain and simple, bureaucratic, there isn't another way to describe it. I like awards, I think they are great motivators but this type of thing is a flagrant violation of Knowledge (XXG) policy, on two fronts, no less. I would also point you toward something else that Knowledge (XXG) is not, that is, it is
974:? If they see fit to give these awards following "x" process, why the heck should any of us care? Have any other Wikipedians been abused or attacked through this process? Does the process involve something inflammatory? Would this reflect poorly upon the project? You know, I've said before that I hesitate to quote
1061:
Absolutely, I am sure you do. But it's not, there isn't any necessity for such petty bureaucracy on
Knowledge (XXG) as is happening at Wikihalo. These people should just run for U.S. Senate and get it over with. As has been said, of course we have necessary bureaucracy, but this stuff is nothing more
433:
What the...actually, I thought about trying to kill this a while back and never got around to it. Why do some people get halos but not others? Why is there this halo-making process? Why is the whole concept of a wikihalo not so much New Age moonshine? Why, in a word, does this exist? Some process is
1042:
The problem is that people treat the bureaucracy as God. I recently saw a user going around leaving notes for users who had the award "illegally", as he called it, by not going through the process. I have absolutely no objection to the award, but the bureaucracy behind it leads to many issues.
195:
I hereby give notice under rule 113, section b, subsection iii, footnote j of my intent to strike out
Stammer's comment, because he clearly hasn't read the rules of Knowledge (XXG) debate participation before commenting and holds no valid permit to comment on Miscellant for deletion.
328:
Your last point isn't quite right. Radiant and Raul's nominations were advertised on the village pump; you're correct though that hardly anybody turned up to comment. Let's say, then, that the opportunity was there but the community weren't interested.
543:
Hmm... You might be right there. Unfortunately it's on
Commons, which I don't know much about, otherwise I would IFD'd it. Can somebody with knowledge of Commons determine if the image is properly licenced or not, and if not nominate it for deletion?
1027:, among several other examples of "voting". And by your definition, of bureaucracy, we could inlcude this very page as bureaucratic. After all, can't we trust our admins to delete only that which is appropriate? And yes, I think such an analogy is
338:
OK agreed - an attempt was made for the entire community to participate, but clearly they didn't. Raul hasn't even officially accepted his nomination (though why you need to accept a nomination to get praised is beyond me).
1090:
I like the feeling of satisfaction that someone may get when he or she receives this reward, since there has to be consensus on it, but the whole process is bureaucratic, like the RFA on enwiki. For these reasons, I am
222:
946:. A good diea in theory, but for goodness sake, it's the award version of an RFA. If someone's doing a great job, tell them so, you don't need votes and a picture for it- apologies for the bluntness.
178:
Yes I do. However, for community awards to work the community must be behind it. That's what this MfD is about, and so far the community seems to most certainly not be behind it. --
1062:
than bureaucracy for the sake of itself. If
Knowledge (XXG) had an Assistant Undersecretary to the Assistant Secretary of bureaucracy, this page, coupled with BAP would be it.
151:
Ok, my previous remark is based on a misunderstanding. Still, I do not see why this should be deleted. It seems a good way to encourage partecipation in the awarding process.
553:
I was under the impression that derivative images of
Wikimedia copyrights were allowed on Commons as long as all rights are transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation. This
998:. The entire Wikihalo process is nothing more than voting on the candidate, hell, it even says "votes" at the top of every nomination. Give me a break,
835:
518:
745:- gawd, RfA is torrid enough, who on earth would want to go through something like it again for fun ?!?! Award is sorta pretty though.....cheers,
818:
17:
934:, unnecessary, bureaucratic popularity contest in the extreme. Shut down quickly and historify with a vengeance and a prejudice. --
160:
Find a user whose work you admire or who helped you develop as a
Wikipedian. Give them a barnstar. Hey, you just participated! :) --
221:
convention. If the comment is stricken, I propose to nominate it for "Comment deletion review", and if that does not succeed, will
534:. To begin with, the image is a copyright violation. And secondly, it's nonessential bureaurcracy for the sake of bureaucracy.
878:
474:
754:
707:
554:
140:
Where is it written that userpages' content should get the community behind it? Which WP policy forbids "instruction creep"?
1118:
733:
602:
460:
1179:. Although I'm sure the nominees are all excellent editors, telling someone "thanks" should not require a nomination or
1237:
863:. This looks too much like Knowledge (XXG):Requests for barnstar. Too few incoming links to really justify a redirect.
36:
847:
828:
and unilaterally award it to someone I find worthy, just to see what the consequences might be. So I think we should
243:
1121:
599:
455:
1093:
not going to vote to stab this article in the head, bury it under 12 tons of molten steel, and then spit on it
722:
to... um, some user award page or something. Awards are good; giant bureaucracies to implement them is not. --
64:
1236:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
1115:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
169:
No, I just expressed a personal preference. Knowledge (XXG) is a collective endeavour. See the difference?
197:
656:
640:
I like your rationale, though I wonder if that story could be turned towards this discussion, as well? -
557:
would suggest that such images are quite widespread. I am no expert either though so I may be incorrect.
797:
371:
71:
1222:
1208:
1189:
1167:
1149:
1135:
1126:
1082:
1066:
1050:
1035:
1018:
982:
960:
938:
926:
914:
892:
869:
851:
812:
800:
784:
768:
757:
737:
714:
684:
667:
644:
635:
605:
590:
574:
548:
538:
526:
495:
483:
465:
442:
428:
414:
402:
395:
384:
374:
356:
333:
323:
298:
277:
252:
229:
200:
182:
173:
164:
155:
144:
130:
117:
103:
87:
74:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below.
935:
907:
789:
411:
975:
1219:
864:
693:
679:
272:
1079:
170:
152:
141:
100:
70:
More instruction creepy process for process sake. You want to give someone a reward, then do it.--
1162:
1107:
978:, since it's so often misapplied. But really, so much of the above is just: "I don't like it". -
750:
700:
630:
535:
473:, though I think the award should be kept (without the whole nomination process). Just add it to
380:
I don't know, I haven't seen her try the innocent look in ages. A halo might help though. O:-) --
83:
This page is a disturbing example of instruction creep... but, Radiant! does deserve a halo! :)
285:, instruction creepy. Not that the people who have received it thus far haven't deserved it. –
1204:
1185:
1132:
729:
367:
112:
991:
901:
822:
1146:
1047:
888:
793:
781:
587:
381:
249:
238:
Per the third edition of the Oxford Rules of
Comment Striking, I hereby invoke a 4th Degree
1176:
1024:
995:
825:
821:, like me? Not that I support Wikihalo. Every time I see it, I have to fight the urge to
614:
1063:
1015:
948:
843:
765:
399:
290:
226:
97:
450:. RfA is stressful enough as it is; why the heck do we need something so similar for an
923:
676:
598:
because we don't need awards that would not be appropriate for
Muslims, atheists, etc.
558:
423:
340:
307:
269:
218:
1157:
809:
746:
624:
619:
545:
513:
478:
439:
330:
179:
161:
127:
126:(not archived) per nomination. A bad idea that hasn't got the community behind it. --
724:
492:
51:
1143:
1044:
884:
777:
246:
839:
500:
Award itself is good - keep that. As for the page and its nomination process?
286:
239:
84:
1032:
979:
641:
564:
346:
313:
213:
Tony
Sidaway's proposal to strike the comment, under rule 113, as I believe
817:
If RFA is the way we 'reward' good contributors, then what about people in
111:. The fact that you have to be NOMINATED for this award makes me nervous.
508:
214:
776:. The construction of bureaucracy is only fun for those creating it.
1230:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
904:, and this award is equally special as all the other barnstars.
692:
This is like
Espranza such as beareaucracy, friendliness etc.--
819:
Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators
1194:
Also delete the 21 pages (including 11 redirects) listed
1078:, as a rare (and instructive) instance of absolute evil.
434:
necessary on-wiki but not when it comes to award-giving.
1199:
1195:
370:
one. I'm sure the community would want to praise her.--
675:. The award is fine, the nomination process is not. --
1142:
Let's delete it, though Stammer's idea isn't bad :)
394:. Lordy, lordy, lordy. If you want to give someone a
422:Frankly, I agree with most of the statements here.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
268:per Xoloz (including awarding a Halo to Radiant)
1240:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
223:sue in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey
877:, excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy.
122:I think this and all subpages should be
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
832:this, just to save me from myself. :)
7:
992:Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy
990:: You're kidding right. Well, first
491:Please get rid of this nonsense. --
1218:nom lacks strong enough argument.
1177:not entirely a bureaucracy ... yet
1131:What would the redirect point to?
475:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Awards
24:
1095:, rather I am going to vote to
1:
988:Delete with extreme prejudice
44:The result of the debate was
436:Delete/shut down/Esperanzify
1023:Well, I might point you to
410:as completely unnecessary.
1257:
1083:14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1067:13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1036:13:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1019:12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
983:12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
961:09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
939:09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
927:08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
915:03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
893:01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
870:23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
852:14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
813:15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
801:15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
785:14:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
769:13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
758:13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
738:09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
715:05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
685:03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
668:03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
645:12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
636:02:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
606:01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
591:00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
575:15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
549:13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
539:23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
527:22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
496:19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
484:19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
466:17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
443:16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
429:15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
415:15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
403:15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
385:15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
375:14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
357:15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
334:15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
324:14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
299:14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
278:14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
230:15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
201:15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
183:15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
174:15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
165:15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
156:14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
145:14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
131:14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
118:14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
104:14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
88:14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
75:14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
1181:any other kind of process
366:I've been bold and given
1233:Please do not modify it.
396:Knowledge (XXG):Barnstar
65:Knowledge (XXG):Wikihalo
32:Please do not modify it.
1223:17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
1209:01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
1190:01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
1175:... Knowledge (XXG) is
1168:05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
1150:01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
1136:01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
1127:01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
1051:01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
900:- Has the same idea as
253:01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
58:20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
922:. Silly bureaucracy.
881:is more than enough.
838:comment was added by
790:Send in the elephants
244:Mornington Crescent!
690:Delete or Historify
600:CambridgeBayWeather
456:Consumed Crustacean
398:, give them one. --
879:WikiProject Awards
855:
633:
573:
464:
427:
368:User:Kelly Martin
355:
322:
275:
242:delayed action.
217:applies, per the
1248:
1235:
1165:
1160:
1125:
1110:
957:
954:
951:
913:
910:
891:
833:
826:ignore all rules
712:
705:
698:
682:
664:
663:
660:
629:
627:
622:
572:
569:
568:
561:
525:
521:
516:
511:
507:
481:
458:
426:
354:
351:
350:
343:
321:
318:
317:
310:
295:
273:
115:
54:
50:
34:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1238:deletion review
1231:
1163:
1158:
1108:
1102:
996:not a democracy
971:as they see fit
955:
952:
949:
908:
905:
882:
834:—The preceding
708:
701:
694:
680:
661:
658:
657:
625:
620:
566:
565:
562:
523:
519:
514:
509:
505:
479:
348:
347:
344:
315:
314:
311:
297:
291:
113:
68:
52:
48:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1254:
1252:
1243:
1242:
1226:
1225:
1220:SakotGrimshine
1213:
1212:
1211:
1170:
1152:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1085:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1039:
1038:
985:
963:
941:
929:
917:
895:
872:
858:
857:
856:
803:
787:
771:
760:
740:
717:
687:
670:
649:
648:
647:
608:
593:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
529:
502:Kill with fire
498:
486:
477:somewhere. ···
468:
445:
431:
424:User:Zscout370
417:
408:Pile-on delete
405:
388:
387:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
301:
289:
280:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
233:
232:
219:Irving Forbush
204:
203:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
148:
147:
135:
134:
120:
106:
90:
67:
62:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1253:
1241:
1239:
1234:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1161:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1109:Magnus animum
1106:
1100:
1099:
1094:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1068:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
986:
984:
981:
977:
973:
972:
967:
964:
962:
959:
958:
945:
942:
940:
937:
933:
930:
928:
925:
921:
918:
916:
912:
911:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
880:
876:
873:
871:
868:
867:
862:
859:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
831:
827:
824:
820:
816:
815:
814:
811:
807:
804:
802:
799:
795:
791:
788:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:
770:
767:
764:
761:
759:
756:
752:
748:
744:
743:Kill the vote
741:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
706:
704:
699:
697:
691:
688:
686:
683:
678:
674:
671:
669:
666:
665:
653:
650:
646:
643:
639:
638:
637:
634:
632:
631:radar contact
628:
623:
616:
612:
609:
607:
604:
601:
597:
594:
592:
589:
586:Yaaaawn... --
585:
582:
576:
570:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
547:
542:
541:
540:
537:
536:Corvus cornix
533:
530:
528:
522:
517:
512:
503:
499:
497:
494:
490:
487:
485:
482:
476:
472:
469:
467:
462:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
441:
437:
432:
430:
425:
421:
418:
416:
413:
409:
406:
404:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
386:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
358:
352:
342:
337:
336:
335:
332:
327:
326:
325:
319:
309:
305:
302:
300:
296:
294:
288:
284:
281:
279:
276:
271:
267:
264:
263:
254:
251:
248:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
202:
199:
194:
193:
184:
181:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
158:
157:
154:
150:
149:
146:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
132:
129:
125:
121:
119:
116:
110:
107:
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
89:
86:
82:
79:
78:
77:
76:
73:
66:
63:
61:
59:
56:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1232:
1229:
1215:
1205:Black Falcon
1203:
1186:Black Falcon
1184:
1180:
1172:
1154:
1133:Sean William
1114:
1104:
1103:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1075:
1028:
1012:delete again
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
987:
970:
969:
965:
947:
943:
931:
919:
906:
897:
874:
865:
860:
829:
805:
773:
762:
742:
723:
719:
709:
702:
695:
689:
672:
655:
651:
618:
610:
595:
583:
531:
501:
488:
471:Delete pages
470:
451:
447:
435:
419:
407:
391:
365:
303:
292:
282:
265:
210:
198:Tony Sidaway
123:
114:Sean William
108:
93:
80:
69:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1183:at all. --
1098:Redirect it
806:Weak delete
588:Infrangible
382:Kim Bruning
133:(e/c aargh)
1064:IvoShandor
1016:IvoShandor
1008:stab twice
976:WP:ILIKEIT
936:Iamunknown
909:The Hippie
766:HaLoGuY007
617:et al. //
412:YechielMan
400:AnonEMouse
240:Billy Swan
227:AnonEMouse
1088:Redirect:
924:Sandstein
866:Gimmetrow
747:Cas Liber
654:Absurd. —
270:Sjakkalle
209:I hereby
848:contribs
836:unsigned
755:contribs
720:Redirect
555:category
546:kingboyk
440:Moreschi
331:kingboyk
274:(Check!)
215:catch 22
180:kingboyk
162:kingboyk
128:kingboyk
1080:Stammer
1031:apt. -
902:WP:BARN
725:wwwwolf
662:Linnear
659:Michael
493:Spartaz
420:Delete.
171:Stammer
153:Stammer
142:Stammer
124:deleted
96:maybe?
1173:Delete
1155:Delete
1144:Ral315
1045:Ral315
1025:WP:RFA
1000:delete
944:Delete
920:Delete
898:Delete
875:Delete
861:Delete
830:delete
823:boldly
810:Haukur
778:Splash
774:Delete
763:Delete
734:growls
673:Delete
652:Delete
615:WP:DIG
611:Delete
603:(Talk)
596:Delete
584:Delete
532:Delete
489:Delete
448:Debete
392:Delete
304:Delete
283:Delete
266:Delete
247:Ral315
211:oppose
109:Delete
101:Silver
81:Delete
46:Delete
1202:. --
840:Xtifr
730:barks
681:desat
621:Pilot
563:(aka
454:? --
452:award
345:(aka
312:(aka
287:Riana
85:Xoloz
53:demon
16:<
1216:Keep
1200:here
1198:and
1196:here
1076:Keep
1033:jc37
1029:very
1010:and
1004:burn
980:jc37
966:Keep
953:tleG
844:talk
798:talk
751:talk
703:ston
677:Core
642:jc37
613:Per
567:Wimt
559:Will
461:talk
349:Wimt
341:Will
316:Wimt
308:Will
225:. --
98:Niko
92:Wiki
1159:Joe
956:irl
950:Cat
932:Ugh
889:fgs
885:ptk
792:.--
753:|
696:Pre
626:guy
480:日本穣
372:Doc
94:bye
72:Doc
1113:∵
1101:.
1014:.
1006:,
1002:,
850:)
846:•
796:|
794:cj
782:tk
780:-
749:|
736:)
544:--
504:.
438:.
329:--
196:--
1164:I
1147:»
1122:γ
1119:φ
1116:∫
1105:~
1048:»
887:✰
883:—
854:.
842:(
732:/
728:(
710:H
571:)
524:♠
520:C
515:M
510:P
506:♠
463:)
459:(
353:)
320:)
293:ऋ
250:»
49:^
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.