Wikipedia talk:WikiOgre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Explanation

Okay what about someone who hibernates for weeks.. months and then goes on a rampage deleting all that crap, delete delete, no citations 2 years, delete, sometimes it's not even making things better, even deleting interesting stuff, it's just you bastards stop spewing your own opinions and muck over everything, yes this is the kind of Ogre I'm this close to becoming :) I personally think wiki needs less contributors now, more people to delete the garbage and make this more like (though not exactly like) one of those boring encylopedias with smaller articles that at least don't contradict themselves. I hope people don't object to this type of ogre, I honestly thik the most i can contribute now is by highlighting bias, lack of citations and just deleting crap. I have no orginal knowlege to add lol have you seen the size of this thing??? :) DarkShroom (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Two separate issues here; how often you edit and what you do when you edit. If you alternate periods of high activity with long WikiVacations, you are a WikiOgre. It is assumed that WikiOgres, like anyone else, edit in good faith and follow Wikipedia guidelines. As to the description above concerning how you edit, it is an ongoing issue that Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia covers quite nicely. Guy Macon 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

The explanation of a WikiOgre is, in my opinion, a bit unclear. I'm not sure if I get this joke. So, a WikiOgre is an editor who for a short period of time makes many edits, but tends to get into trouble because he/she doesn't know how to behave. Am I right? - Face 10:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"That is, every once in a while the WikiOgre goes on a rampage, but most of the time he just sits around in his cave and eats the random passerby."

You are not right ;-) It's more like doing nothing most of the time and editing some evenings in a row without sleeping :-P That fit's my profile best, I guess.. -- JonnyJD 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself. I'm gonna have myself a mini-rampage right now to make the description a bit more positive. Zeng8r (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing is when we are in our "caves", we like to stay secretive. I am in mine now. So watch out punk. Jibajabba 11:45 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a wiki ogre myself, and the way It works for me is a pretty much what they say in the article. I'll go days, weeks, even months without posting except for minor edits, then completely rewrite the article for cybernetics over the span of a day or two without reguard to the objections of my fellow wikipedians, then return satisfied at the newly remodeled countryside to my cave for another period of hibernation till my next furious rampage. The hallmark of a wikiogre IMO is the tendancy to tromp over pesky things like discussion, "do not edit because this page/heading is being debated" tags, WikiGnome's objections over broken links, ect. and just get down to fixing the problem and be done with it.--Scorpion451 rant 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. What you describe is simply a bad Wikipedia editor who does not follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It shouldn't be tied in to whether or not the bad editor happens to be a WikiOgre instead of doing his bad editing at a steady pace. Trying to paint WikiOrges in a bad light is simply AntiOgre prejudice. Guy Macon 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I one, perhaps?

May I consider myself a wiki-ogre? I often do not contributo for days, or weeks, than suddenly make like over 100 contribs on a single day, and than quit editing for some time. Does this description of my editing style sounds like a WikiOgre to you, or just something else? -The Bold Guy- 14:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You, my friend, are a WikiOgre. Wear your title with pride! Guy Macon 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiGnomes

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiGnome#WikiOgres. --Thinboy00 @255, i.e. 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I have removed the reference to WikiGnomes for the reasons explained there. I also question the existence of this page as a whole. Not to repeat myself too much, but Wikipedia is not a Role Playing Game. At the very least, the "humor" template probably should be put back on the page. There might be a template that is better, but I don't know of one. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not for the sake of role playing. That is for the sake of: People looking at my page will see, that it is quite possible not to get any answer from me for some months, but after that time I might do lots of edits again. --JonnyJD (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do WikiOgres have any enemies, like a WikiDragon doesn't like a WikiKnight. Because I know they have frieds. WikiGnoms

Oh mercy, I created WikiOgres to be WikiOgres, not to live in a WikiOgre universe! (Nothing against you.)

— The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed

How do you use WikiFauna Templates and userboxes on wikias, such as 'microwiki' ? I am a very active editor there, and would like to apply an Ogress" template. If you can help me, please reply here. Thankyou for your help in advance. Bokontonian (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an explanation on how to do this on the main page now. Let us know if you have any trouble following it. Guy Macon 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding new page called Language

At the end do i post reflist or will it automatically add to the references already list from Main page. It does not show as posted to main page.

Also I add information which is thorough that calusa is a Choctaw word and not Choctaw Indian.

Thank you for your help and Welcome to Florida.67.235.129.179 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As for your first question, Wikipedia:Help desk should be able to help you. As for your second question, the words "calusa" and "Choctaw" are not in the current version of the page, and thus I believe no further action is required. Guy Macon 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

better image

• Here's a far better image:

.. but I don't dare add it. I wilt when I'm reverted over such things. Y'all enjoy yourselves now. • Ling.Nut 07:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The above image is used on the current version. Guy Macon 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

It is a cute and well-written article. 75.54.129.226 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)