Forum:Crowns and AEAE

Forums: Yew Grove > Crowns and AEAE

Recently the crown images that were used to identify administrators, bureaucrats, or users with rollback were deleted because they violated AEAE. I'm curious as to whether this was really necessary. To me, crowns were simply a means of identifying what tools a user had, similar to hilited usernames. I'm also having a hard time applying AEAE to this situation. Administrators may be equal to other users in how their opinions or edits are valued, but they are simply not equal to other users in their ability to protect, delete, block, ect. I think that we need to truly nail down how administrators fit into AEAE, and also make a decision regarding images/userboxes that distinguish one user from another.

So, at this point, I guess I'm not proposing something as much I'm trying to start a discussion regarding how AEAE should be dealt with. I could be misinterpreting AEAE, so input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 19:51, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I understand that bots aren't users, but they do still have a crown. Why? --Aburnett ^(Talk) 19:53, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The deletion of the crown images was silliness, in my honest opinion. While we are all equal as editors, Sysops do have special tools, and you can't get around that. The only part of it that I can see breaking AEAE at any point would be the fact that they are crowns, and they are only crowns because they look similar to the pmod/jmod crowns in the game this wiki is about. We already know we are all equal, the crowns are irrelevant. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:57, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If a crown violates AEAE, a hilited name also does. Frede^Talk 20:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't understand why these were deleted though, If they were violating the policy, why were they not deleted earlier? Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 20:27, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think that the small crowns, which are often used in sigs, should stay deleted, because they can be misleading for newcomers. In RS, moderators have 'power', and thus have a crown next to their name. Jmods are pretty much the bosses of the game.

However, on this wiki, we have bureaucrats and administrators and stuff with 'tools'. If they have a crown next to their name, newcomers will automatically assume that they are moderators and have power, because in RS, mods also have crowns. This makes RS:AEAE very confusing for them, and can lead to awkward situations.
Also, some people have used these crowns to brag about what they call their "rights" on this Wiki, which is ridicule, because all editors are equal.

However, the big crowns are only used in userboxes. These userboxes are not used for bragging, but for general information - 'I am a sysop. I have administrator tools.' That tells people that they could ask that person to do something that requires admin tools, but it is less confusing for newcomers and it is not a way of bragging. Oil4 ^Talk 21:26, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - (Edit Conflict) Thanks for creating this forum. Degen's idea that they represent royalty are absurd. If they're a violation of AEAE, then hilites are, "This user is X" templates are, and simply saying "I am an administrator/bureaucrat" is, too. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.png^Gone. 21:29, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's not absurd. He has a point. I think that maybe using crowns isn't really such a good idea - but what icon should be used instead? Oil4 ^Talk 21:50, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some images that actually represent rollback/admin/'crat be used rather than a crown - e.g. a bucket with the red R on it for rollback, a broom with green A, etc. Images from RS if possible.  @Gaz#7521 22:05, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

A bukkit? --Iiii I I I 22:08, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Only the believers deserve bukkits. HAIL BUKKIT! KEOO^rwojy 22:12, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

SHUVELS> BUKKITS Also, the crowns are based off of images from RS (P/J-mod crowns). That's why they were made like that in the first place. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.png^SHUVELS

Support re-addition of crowns - Who's the idiot who wanted to remove the crown icons in the first place? Fruit.Smoothie 23:33, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

That was Dengen and made over 3000 wanted pages :( Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 23:36, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support re-addition of crowns and re-write of AEAE - I think this is ridiculous. AEAE does not make sense in the fact that all editors are equal. It is way to general in saying that all editors are perfectly equal and no editors have power over another. That is true, in ways, but HOW is it equal if I have the power to delete so-and-so, but a new editor who just joined doesn't? That is not equal. We might be equal in the fact that all of our opinions are equal and we all have the same rights and the same rules to follow, but when it comes to privileges and tools, we are not equal. You can't just simply label everything on this wiki to be equal, 'cause it's not.

Another thing, WHAT is so wrong with crowns? Is it the way they're shaped or the way they light up the screen's pixels that make them go against AEAE? If I painted an A on a bucket and a crown, and placed one in this userbox, and one in this userbox, is there a difference in their meaning? I sure as hell don't think so, saying "ohh, well a crown means royalty and power and a bucket means nothing" isn't the true meaning of something. That's an opinion. Deletion summaries shouldn't be based on opinions, they should be based on if and how the subject goes against our policies, and you can't delete something over an unclear policy. For suggestions on how to make AEAE clearer, well, read the above paragraph.

My two cents, User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 00:01, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Lil diriz, if you think AEAE needs a rewrite, maybe you should read it again. The policy is basically saying that no one's opinions/beliefs have any more precedence over others, and no one has any authority over other users. Quoting the policy: Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the wiki community who are recognised for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments. This does not give them authority over other players in overruling decisions. Simply put, having the tools to delete and block does not give them any more authority than other users. C.Chiam^Talk 03:04, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I know that much. I know it says that, but it could be written clearer. Well, it should sound more like this, but not in list form:

1) Does one user have more authority over another user, opinion-wise? No

2) Does one user have more power over another user, ownership-of-the-wiki-wise? No

3) May one user have more tools than another user has? Possibly, depending on the user

See what I mean? We're all equal in most ways, but it's possible that we differ when it comes to a user's tools. By this, I mean rollback rights, admin rights, b'crat rights, forum admin rights, bot rights, etc. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 19:23, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wouldn't the simple solution to the problem to be to pick another object that doesn't have any relation at all to royalty and gods chosen representive on Earth and all that stuff. The object doesn't have to be a crown that bares an "A" to show that it is an admin. We could get that bucket of water photo, use paint to crudely draw an "A" on it and it would be able to take the place of the crown with no real downsides. There is probably something better to use then a bucket however _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:13, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just don't see why this is such a problem in the first place. It's not, really. Like I said, Degen's assumption that crowns = royalty/editors-not-being-equal is his opinion. What if I think crowns mean poverty and/or death? It's not set in stone what anything means, society and people just apply meanings to them that we think fit. Obviously, Degen thinks the meaning of royalty/editors-not-being-equal fits nicely with crowns. I however, think crowns mean poverty and death. Who's gonna stop me? User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 00:23, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

3 edit conflicts in a row! This is the first sentence that you get when you type "crown" into wikipedia: "A crown is a term (crown (anatomy)) referring to a part of the head or of a hat, or to a head ornament or type of headgear for the highest rank in a socio-political hierarchy." Pretend that you are watching a show, any show, and you see someone who is wearing a crown. Your first though would be that "Ooh, he is a king, and therefore he is in charge of making decisions." It is the same with Jagex being represented by golden crowns in-game and on the forums; it is to show to players that don't know what it means that they are more then just an ordinary user. I personally don't mind if the crowns are removed or not (it doesn't seem like that much of a problem) but I don't see why we have to go back to crowns when there is an obvious stigma attached. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:47, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would suggest using whatever the default wikia uses, I think wikipedia also uses crowns so yeah I'd support using the status quo as such ;) Veritas vos Liberabit 00:33, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - Just so each editor doesn't feel inferior in regards to admins

File:Cleaner.Png

having crowns, how about we shrink the image for the Varrock cleaner (as shown to the right) down to fit inside the userboxes and put a crudely drawn "A" on his chest to symbolize the housekeeping/maintenance tasks that admins normally do on a day-to-day basis. This would also to a stop to bragging rights, as I doubt most people would brag about having a userbox with a cleaner in it. That's my two cents on the matter.

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 00:35, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree that deleting the crowns was not really necessary. Technically, not all editors can be equal anyway because administrators/bureaucrats do have access to more tools than normal editors.

According to RS:AEAE: Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the wiki community who are recognised for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments. This does not give them authority over other players in overruling decisions; all major decisions of this kind (such as requesting adminship) must be made by the community, and not by an individual

How does a picture of a crown give you authority over anything? It's just a symbol representing your status as an editor. New wikians won't necessarily assume that you are some kind of leader or something because you have a crown in your signature (or elsewhere). Once they read RS:AEAE, then they'll know that administrators/bureaucrats are not authoritative figures.  Tien  00:36, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Said wonderfully. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 00:39, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry for the double comment, I just needed to add a point. If an icon is changed, the new icon will merely represent authority like the crown did. For example if the crown was replaced with a chisel, the chisel would become associated with "sysop or crat" status, therefore it'd become another status symbol of authority.

Just image for example that all Ferrari sports cars are redesigned to look very very ugly indeed. After a while, very very ugly cars would make people think of Ferrari sports cars.

In the same way that by changed the crown to say a bucket, the bucket would connotate the authority, extra powers and heightened respect that many administrators receive, and so the argument would be back to square one.

Veritas vos Liberabit 00:42, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

DefinitonsMain Entry: 1crown Pronunciation: \ˈkrau̇n\ Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English coroune, crowne, from Anglo-French corone, from Latin corona wreath, crown, from Greek korōnē culmination, something curved like a crow's beak, literally, crow; akin to Latin cornix crow, Greek korax raven — more at raven Date: 12th century

1 : a reward of victory or mark of honor; especially : the title representing the championship in a sport 2 : a royal or imperial headdress or cap of sovereignty :

---

Main Entry: 1buck·et Pronunciation: \ˈbə-kət\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French buket, from Old English būc pitcher, belly; akin to Old High German būh belly Date: 13th century

1 : a typically cylindrical vessel for catching, holding, or carrying liquids or solids

---

A crown is much more "glorius" than a bucket. No one is going to want to be a rollback or a sysop to get a "bucket"(or hammer or chisel or spade). The difference is clear.

Oh, major point a lot of people are missing. Technically, the pictures were not used in mainspace, and every day pics are deleted for not being used in mainspace. The difference here is that too many sigs and whatnot linked to them for deleting to be practical. So lie to yourself if you want about what a crown means, deleting per not used in mainspace was perfectly legitimate.--Degenret01 02:19, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, can't that rule be loosened up a little? Maybe I shouldn't be directly be asking you, and rather the community, but can't the rule be changed? I mean, damn, the policies and rules on this wiki just take the fun out of everything. First it's no costumes, then there's no images not used in the mainspace... we can't be a little lenient and allow what, 14 crown images to bypass the rule? They were used perfectly fine, and I'm sure alot of people liked them as they were. Really, is it such a big deal to have a few images that aren't used in the mainspace? This star image isn't used in the mainspace, but people haven't had a problem with it. It's used for purely recreational activites (I'm of course talking about the wikifest), it's not used in the mainspace. Even Leevclarke, an admin, uploaded it! Degen, would you like to delete this, and this too? They're both used in userboxes only, are used for recreational activites (giving little tidbits of information on a userpage), and people seem to like having them on their userpage too. These images are no different than the crowns (ignoring the conversation we've had about definitons and AEAE, as we'll just keep arguing on and on... no one wins this way, we need the community's opinion). Soon, all userboxes are going to be are text. There's nothing wrong with having a little fun once in a while. I'll propose a change to image policy or something, if this post is in the wrong place. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 03:07, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Degen, are you trying to be funny or something? You're being EXTREMELY absurd. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.png^Gone. 03:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RS:IMG on non-mainspace images:

“	All images hosted on the wiki must be used in the main article namespace at least once. Project-related images, such as the sysop crown, are an exception.	”
	— RS:IMG

Reference to the specific images in question aside, I think we do have a use for non-mainspace images if they help the wiki in some other way. --Quarenon  _Talk 03:55, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Re-addition of crowns on userpages- I don't find having a crown on your userpage is braggy or violates AEAE. It's just a crown. Now in signatures on the other hand, is confusing to new editors, because in runescape, p-mods and J-mods have "special powers" which is completely misleading of admins. there not actual people who get paid, and can do ANYTHING. Support Re-Addition, Per Lil diriz 77. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 04:58, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There should have been some discussion before these crowns were deleted. While I can understand where Degen is coming from, they are merely used to identify the different user groups. Jagex uses crowns so we obviously based ours off of their ideas. I support undeleting them. Andrew ^talk 05:15, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Dengen is an idiot: Plain and simple. Words and images have no business concerned with the matter of equality, ONLY ACTIONS DO! Keep the crown. Also, can someone please provide me a link to Dengen's user page? I would like to have a little chat with him. Fruit.Smoothie 01:47, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think the crowns should be kept, but ban the use of them in signatures. --Nup^(T) 03:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be banned from signatures - I don't see how that affects AEAE more than the use of them in userboxes. User:C Teng/sig 05:10, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support undeletion - I stated my long paragraph about the many reasons why they should be kept on Forum:Rollback - A privilege, not a right.. The crowns are simply a symbol; to represent something. I can't be bothered writing something long so I'll just to a copy-paste job:

"WHAT? The crowns were deleted because they apparently showed a form of authority? 1. The crowns are were there to assist the viewer in knowing that the user is an admin/'crat/whatever. 2. It was also there to make te userbox look more appealing. Templates always look pretty with an image. 3. If it is the fact that they were "crowns" which represent royalty which is authority, I believe they were crowns because Jagex/player/forum mods user crowns. At first there was only one admin crown and it was derived from the in-game one, with the little pixelated "M". Then we made another one for 'crats, then bots, then staff and helpers, and somewhere in the middle a rollback one was made. If people go pasting them on their signature, go boasting it around the forums, etc. then we should do something. I think the crowns should be brought back and only used on userpages by the users; also maybe try and change the usage from "crown" to "icon". Wikipedia has an icon for admins there. Anyway, my view on the rollbacks acting all authoritative, just tell 'em that they can't go boasting about it. Simple as that. Not much we can do, the policies already state it is not a right, privelige, honour or, in a way, status. Cheers." Chicken7 ^>talk 05:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Whichever way this goes, I believe bot crowns should remain, as it is not used on anything but bot pages, not in sigs or stuff. EMTL^rwojy 07:23, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support undeletion - per all. Degenret, I think you should have discussed this first in the Yew Grove before deleting the crown images.

Issue: Why delete them now?

Crown images have been used since February 2008 (see File:Bureaucratcrown.PNG) and were discussed earlier here... why did they not violate AEAE then?

Question: Why delete them now all of a sudden?

Issue: Crowns, bots, and AEAE

“	Unused file/Unused in mainspace: Crowns also show authority which violate AEAE. Vanity images do not belong on the wiki.	”
	— Deletion summary of File:Bot crown.svg Degenret01

I was wondering why the bot crown image was deleted? I don't think a bot will ever be considered authority or royalty. Bots are used for automated edits, for goodness' sake. Besides, AEAE does not apply for bots, only the bot policy should apply.

Suggestion: If user crowns are considered symbols for power and royalty, maybe we could replace the crown with a triangle/square/circle/etc?

Issue: Not used in mainspace

“	Technically, the pictures were not used in mainspace, and every day pics are deleted for not being used in mainspace.	”
	— Forum:Crowns and AEAE Degenret01

As some have pointed out, they are plenty of other project-related images that are not used in the mainspace. Admins should use their own discretion when they delete images. Admins should not delete images simply because they appear in Special:UnusedFiles. I remember restoring an image, which was used incorrectly (via a direct URL). It ended up in the UnusedFiles list, and was subsequently deleted. If the admin bothered to check if the file was still being linked, the image would not have been deleted. I quote a line from UnusedFiles:

“	Please note that other web sites may link to a file with a direct URL, and so may still be listed here despite being in active use.	”
	— Special:UnusedFiles

The crown images are used extensively, and deleting them will only create an unnecessary mess in Special:WantedFiles. The images could have been redirected to the "This image has been deleted" image, or a blank image (i.e. File:1x1-pixel.png). Even if they were personal files, deletion was definitely NOT the solution.

Suggestion: Admins should check if the image is used before deleting. If it is used a lot, and needs to be deleted, redirect them instead.

Cheers.   az ^talk   08:00, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Before these were deleted, I uploaded them to my wiki so I have got a backup of the images. I have added the crowns back to the userboxes using my wiki's url for them. Feel free to revert if not wanted. ;) Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 11:44, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Idea failed. :(

Comment - The images are not lost. A sysop will be able to undelete them based on the result of this thread. --Quarenon  _Talk 11:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why do these need to go through an undeletion process before their undeletion when they were deleted without any type of deletion process? (errr.... that makes sense, right?) http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.png^Gone. 14:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the answer you're looking for: This discussion is the undeletion process. If the decision is to bring them back, we will do it straight away. If we keep doing things without discussion, we'll have back and forward edit wars. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 15:09, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Replace big ones with different icon, delete small crowns - Per what I said above. I agree with Degen. Oil4 ^Talk 17:19, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support undeletion - Per every undeletion support, the crowns are simply a symbol, they just represent the tools that somebody has, it's not anything showing royalty/power over the others. If the crowns are SO bad for the wiki because of what they SEEM to represent, maybe we could replace the crown with a triangle/square/circle/etc, like Azliq said. Brux ^Talk 18:00, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support undeletion - While I see what Degen was trying to get at, I do disagree. They are used in userboxes to identify admins, etc. I do not think they violate AEAE, they just provide a handy way for someone to show they are an admin. I think the crown image is being overanalyzed. I'm guessing it was used because it is similar to the crowns in RS. A Pmod can mute you in RS and a sysop can block on the wiki, makes sense to me. Tollerach hates SoF 18:35, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Delete small, Keep large - so, after reading the extensive comments above, I would agree with deleting the smaller crowns. These are only used within signatures, and the crowns use in signatures is most defiantly just using the crowns symbol of power. As for the larger crowns, those should be undeleted. They didn't violate the image policy being a "project image", and they do not violate AEAE because they don't show that an admin has any special authority over discussions. they simply identified users who had special abilities in maintaining the wiki, similar to name hiliting. I wouldn't be opposed to a new set of images either, like a bucket or a broom, but I think the crown seems more official and will probably look better than some pixilated images taken from a game screenshot. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 18:54, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps use a different symbol instead of a crown which projects undue authority, a shield would be more symbolic to the role of admins and I imagine would be fairly easy to create especially with templates already available, just a thought.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

22:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

It sounds good, except for that Shields already seem a bit regal and may be warped in the minds of wikians to mean such. Still, it's the best idea anyone has had thus far. User:Stelercus/Signature 00:14, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

What about a wooden shield? It doesn't seem as regal as a Falador shield 3 or something. --Iiii I I I 00:30, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I would rather go with the Kite Shields. As a non-sysoped user, I don't feel like sysops "tower over" me with the crown images. we all know they are a reference to the pmod crowns, and I would rather go with that. If the Crowns are not undeleted, I support the shields. User:Stelercus/Signature 13:22, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Undelete, allow in signatures per all, and because having the icons in signatures aren't much different from hilite, in my opinion. User:C Teng/sig 23:03, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - On another wiki, They have got this symbol for the administrator userbox: . So I was thinking we could have only the mop if we don't have the crowns undeleted. Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 09:19, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Shields sound cool As Azaz says, they are more representative of what we do than the crowns (which I truly loathe). Almost anything would be better than a crown. There is just no getting around that people here come from RuneScape where crowns = authority. Whether we mean it to or not, new people WILL get the wrong message.--Degenret01 10:13, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Shields - What a great idea. Oil4 ^Talk 11:12, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have tried making the shield crowns but when I uploaded them on photobucket, they looked to small so I am thinking about party hats. Either shields or party hats. In my opinion, If I make the party hats and they look good, I would go for the party hat idea of mine :)

Here are the party hats we could use:

• Administrator: http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac29/Rswikia/Adminpartyhat.png
• Rollback: http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac29/Rswikia/Rollbackpartyhat.png

I have only got Administrator and Rollback so far because they are the only colors that are available party hats.

Anyone agree?

Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 13:20, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Party hats are crowns... Oil4 ^Talk 19:46, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I liked the idea of shields, so I went ahead and played around for a few minutes making some. Let me hear your feedback. http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/Admin3.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/Crat1.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/Bot1.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/Forum1.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/Rollback2.png Karlis (talk) (contribs)

01:32, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Dude those are hawt. Support. Andrew ^talk 02:47, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep my bukkit, thanks. WTODGIV^rwojy 02:49, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I like them, but I truly do not see a problem with the crowns. If they actually have become a sign of authority, so will these. Maybe they will not be as authoritative as the crowns, but they will slowly be recognised the same way the crowns are, whatever that is. Also, it'd be good if they were .gifs so that we could make them smaller and bigger and they'd not turn pixely. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 04:17, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well they aren't definitive, and were merely a rough draft. They can be quickly changed as needed. As it stands, I don't see a connection to shields and authority at all, as if anything, they represent protectors, or people here to defend the wiki and keep it safe and pleasant. =) Karlis (talk) (contribs)

04:20, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, just throwing this out there, poor people can afford shields so they died and rich people could so they lived. Shows the autority or being safe . http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 04:24, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Stretching the "meaning" just a bit aren't we? Having this (the crown, shield, whatever we use) shows that you at least know a fair amount about the wiki, and are easily identified by newcomers as a source of help. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

04:27, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

The shield could be like a family shield, symbolising that you are a respected member of the RuneScape wiki Family/Community. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 04:31, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I really think, to keep it as fair as AEAE as possible, there should also be ones for regular users. A lot of them do their part reporting vandalism and reverting bad edits. Maybe a grey or dark blue color with a "U". It will show them they are as respected and as needed as everyone else, and they truly are.--Degenret01 04:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of colours to play with, so here's a handfull:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/User1.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/User2.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/User3.png http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/suntigerrevival/User4.png Karlis (talk) (contribs)

04:55, January 11, 2010 (UTC)