I'm feeling vain today, I want to give a sock of mine a Barnstar, is there any policy against a user awarding themself Barnstars?

Are there any cases of editors being caught out doing this?

I think barnstars are meaningless. There are no rules about them or authority in charge of them, IIRC.

I think it's a felony in seventeen states ... oh wait, no, no one gives a rat's rear.

Tell that to Chillum.

I vaguely recall someone making a fuss about someone who had copied someone else's barnstars, but if you were to award them to yourself or an openly declared sock people would probably just look at you strange.

Incidentally, I just got a barnstar for talk page stalking. Score!

Create a few socks, and give yourself whatever you want.

Wikipedia is a joke, so you might as well get some laughs at their expense.

Why? Many editors keep a list of their barnstars somewhere on their user page, it's no big deal.

And before you go looking, no, I don't. Not because I don't appreciate appreciation, but because I don't want to overwhelm the servers every time someone looks at my user page.


My favourite barnstar incident was when an editor gave me one only to take it back shortly afterwards when he fell out with me. Still makes me laugh even today.

You should have reverted him, and you get unlimited reverts on your Talk page, he'd have been bonked for revert warring if he resisted. Look for my upcoming book, Wikilawyering for Fun and Profit. Might as well use this experience for something. I'm sure it would be popular.

Some went blind first, so the WP punishment was unnecessary. I think it also causes epilepsy and insanity.

Don't listen to Malleus. He used to give himself barnstars using a palm pilot, but soon he had to use a machine that needs to be plugged into the wall. So now look at him.

Why stop at barnstars? From my recent reading of RW I believe their ought to be several self appointed Noble and similar award (the more obscure the better) recipients in our ranks. Just "incubate" the award away from article space then move to some specially created list. Even when the edit is caught you can send the diffs to Colbert's producers and maybe even get more attention for your truthiness.

I remember a rather stupid AN/I discussion once regarding one Wikipediot who was seeking to have another Wikipediot banned for giving "improper" barnstars (barnstars which had not been "properly earned" according to the applicable "rules").

Supposedly there are no rules for giving or receiving barnstars, but Wikipedia has an overample supply of people whose lives are not complete unless every aspect of those lives is completely governed by some rule or another, and so they have created rules which they then expect others to follow, whether or not those rules make any sense at all.

Wow. How inane. I probably shouldn't be surprised, tho.

Barnstars on userpages are a bit like collecting stickers (decal in US) for your car, fridge, cupboard or filing cabinet. The interesting thing is what a random group of editors award you so you can design with

Maybe somebody will give you one with a Human anus. You could put it right at the end.

Of course you can.

Sounds like yer hintin' I'm full of shit

I still need to get around to giving myself the "Best Damn Barnstar in the Universe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=...15414&diff=prev

What editors really need to be able to do is award themselves something useful, like Founder status.

I can do that.

Once.

So I don't wanna.

For de-linking red-link cricket terms, some of which might (conceivably) have supported an article? I mean, if you're as much of a cricket fanatic as to write an article on Fast bowling, why not subarticles on other terms, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266586803

A wanker in many ways, this guy.

Fast bowling is I understand one of the most important concepts in cricket. Unless you're some American who believes that cricket is so unimportant it only deserves one article, what's wrong with one on fast bowling?

I find barnstars to be very kind, yet insignificant, gestures. Anything that encourages friendliness and contributed to a collaborative environment is a plus in my eyes.

What a unique and refreshing perspective.

Fast bowling is an integral part of cricket. All those terms are as/more relevant to cricket than, say, curve ball or catcher is to baseball.

Fast bowling actually has quite an interesting an controversial history, what with the Australian bodyline tour of the 1930s, Lillee and Thomson in the 70s, and the West Indies attack in the 1980s.

This is the second time the matter of this guy awarding himself a barnstar for writing the Fast Bowling article has come up at this site.

Who cares?

Grudge methinks?

I don't hold a grudge - I have never worked with the user. I just forgot that this came up before. However, he didn't 'write' the article. He made four edits to it in which he wikilinked four terms.

never got one - never gave one - don't want any

Is someone taking the mick?

Can you award yourself barnstars? Absolutely.

You can also put up a big sign that says "I am a kook."

Enjoy!

Yes, this user did exactly that.

That cracked me up, awarding himself all barnstars.

I suppose they can't do anything if fully acknowledge it and you don't misrepresent yourself.

Wouldn't that be a Personal Attack against yourself?

The trick is to quit while you only need glasses.