Wikipedia talk:WikiGnome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wik creatures

I wonder the what the description is for an wikipedian who frequently creates full fleged articles form scratch and other "large edits" to wikipedia..? I suppose an simpliar description would be an wikignome who makes Major edits frequently. -Zero^Talk 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See WikiDragon article.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 02:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A wikipediholic or a wikiholic.- You people don't need further encouragement to indulge in fantasy worlds with cutesy fantasy labels. You need help! Hello. My name is Megaman Zero and I'm a wikiholic! Cuvtixo 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about WikiHobbit or less copyright infringing a WikiHalfling? WikiHalflings "liked to have books filled with things they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions" . Unlike WikiFairies or WikiGnomes WikiHalflings do not make small edits, but add new lengthy articles (never stubs) or expand articles on subjects they already know too much about. They probably have a relatively low edit count but still feel they have made a substantive contribution to wikipedia. C mon 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiDwarves (Specifically WikiGimlis) make short simple of-average-skill posts but disproportionately are extremely proud and boisterous, WikiOrcs like to destroy posts and cause wikipagewars. WikiElves are wikiers who seem excessively feminine. WikiHumans are neutral and the most average of a wikier you can get. WikiDragons are omniposters that offer giant reward wikichests full of barnstars and wikigold if defeated in a wiki post or NPOV war.--Exander 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Be a Wikignome!

The 6th chapter in the Gospel According to Matthew says that you should be a WikiGnome: do good deeds without clamoring for attention! (Obviously, the word "Wikignome" is not used in the Bible, however.) JaredW! 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit clamoring for attention. -- Sy / ^(talk) 22:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steveo2 quit clamoring for attention as Sysy said. Caleb09 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Need WikiGnomes' opinions

Since there doesn't appear to be a Wikignome project or any other community center, I'll post this here. WP:NNOT is a proposal to protect articles from being deleted due to being non-notable. The issue has been raised that conserving nn articles places additional workload on wikignomes to maintain articles that aren't very valuable. One opinion is that articles are cared about less, therefore fewer people spend time edit them. I'd like wikgnomes' opinions on this: would additional nn articles keep you from editing the rest of WP? Please post opinions on Wikipedia talk:Non-notability. --Ephilei 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NOT written by WikiGnomes

This article obviously isn't written by WikiGnomes. By definition they are too humble for that. Thus the official wikignome standards are defined by non-wikignomes. Also people with the "This user is a Wiki-Gnome" tags are not true wikignomes by definition. True wikignomes are invisible, untangible, and unknown, just like leprechauns. Leprechauns cannot be defined because a true leprechaun has not come forward with information because in doing so it will no longer be a leprechaun.

Of course I am not a wikignome. Please note my signature and remember my name for this epic post! --Exander 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a wikignome, and just edited the article appropiately :-). Dan100 (Talk) 08:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: perhaps Wikipedians should be able to label each other as wikignomes? I'm still naive enough about the tools at hand as to be unsure about the mechanism, but it might be a cute way to show gratitude, and stop people from disappearing in a puff of logic when they ungnomically label themselves as gnomes! LaPrecieuse (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys just take a break, this isn't something that should be taken incredibly seriously. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why further examples are useful

I believe the list of further examples (see below), improves this page because:

1. It provides a number of interesting (at least to me), and undoubtably useful to the 'pedia tasks which may be of interest; and some of which, I at least, hadn't heard about before now.
2. The page is not overly long (less than a screenfull on my screen).

I look forward to further discussion on this topic. If I don't receive a response within 1 day of this posting, I will assume there are no further objections, and re-introduce the text. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The text in question:

Further examples of gnome-like work include: adding ISBNs of books that people mention and making an entry for their articles in the List of books by title, tracking down the authorship of "someone once said" quotes, adding links to text already in an article or to useful categories; adding redirects; or adding examples and details to information referenced in the text (for example, adding "such as Silence and Deep River" to the line "Shusaku Endo has written important books").

I think it's a solid addition. Nobody said it had to be/could be comprehensive, and it can always be modified. Maybe a mention of User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker? -- nae'blis 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added it. I wasn't sure how to phrase the mention of Dragon flight's thing, so I didn't add that (although I find it very useful). Feel free to do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now reverted Dan100's undiscussed reversion to his cut version, which also screwed up various small fixes (a missing word, an old category, etc.) and reintroduced an image removed due to it probably being a copyright violation. It's simply to respectful to go against two other contributors and revert to a version that'd already been rejected, as Dan's had been. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo

I just fixed a typo on the WikiGnome page. Now is that ironic or what ? :-) --Fils du Soleil 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also fitting. The reason I joined after only using Wikipedia for a very short time was that I saw typographical errors on three pages on three pages in a row. One was a comma, where it really did not want to be (like the comma I just put after the word "comma") on the Introduction page. Then I saw a "sentence" that was a less-than-half-finished rewrite, The words seemed to contradict themselves because too much old material had been deleted and not enough new material had been written. I hate it when my fingers don't keep up with my brain. I did not mind being anonymous when I made the first changes but I was not going to hide behind anonymity for the last one.

The good news is that the comma was removed within hours after I saw it. The bad news is that I cannot remember where I saw the other errors. There is a high probability that I cannot find them because they have already been fixed.

JimCubb 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this qualify?

I add alot of templates to newly created articles (be they nonsense, in need of Wikifying, requiring sources etc). I also welcome new users. Does this make me a gnome?--Edchilvers 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so. All of those activities, while not directly related to adding encyclopedic content to Wikipedia, are nonetheless crucial to helping everything run smoothly. EVula 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a WikiSlave

I was a naive Wikignome once, then for a short period entered some hot debate on some articles' talk pages (no edit wars!) where creative trolls are pushing their POV, in my humble opinion. So I got myself banned by rogue admins, and now I consider myself a WikiSlave: Still a WikiGnome, sort of. Still doing copy edits, for typos, grammar, and punctuation -- but very well aware that my opinion is not being cared for regarding more difficult topics that do need attention. Being reverted for "obvious trolling" even in user talk pages, however civil I behave. Even worse: No reason must be given at all, because "banned editors may not edit". But those minor edits I still contribute are not being reverted. Don't get me wrong: I liked being a Wikignome, but now I realize I don't have a choice, and that's where (admittedly, volunteer) WikiSlavehood begins. It exists, I'm sure of that much. But did it happen to anyone else? 87.78.180.212 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, slave seems an odd word to describe voluntary action... Esspecially because, if you wish, you are free to make copies of the controversial articles you consider bad, make your changes, and publish them on a webhost. All that is being forbidden you is to publish your preferred versions on Wikipedia. I believe your claim that we have some biased people controlling articles on various controversial topics; I even believe that you may have been banned illegitimatly - the throughput at this point is so large I'm sure we make a few horrible miscairages of justice every few days, at least - but "slave" still seems a, um, wildly disproportanate term to use. Thanks for your comments. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to be a little provocative - at this point, that shouldn't do any more harm. Maybe WikiBitch comes closer? - Thanks anyway for your remarks, I know (always knew) that there are still many very reasonable people around, but their number and power is limited, and proportionally declining. Since the time when I first stopped by, Wikipedia has grown to a point where the sheer possibility of influencing people instead of honestly and neutrally informing them is heavily attracting jerks who deliberatly abuse policy. Unfortunately for wikipedia and its readers, many of those "creative trolls" are professionals at gaming the system, i.e. shamelessly exploiting policy and guidelines to their ends, and are often well-connected to likeminded admins (cabals do exist). I've seen enough good users getting kicked or annoyed to the point where they give up their faith in this project. - Although I do appreciate how much hard work policy-making is, still I wonder why people in charge don't intervene. Is this the way Jimbo wants it? -- 84.44.170.176 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest they (or anyone else) do? Remember - any troll of even minor skill knows to claim it's their opponents who are the real trolls; and, as you said, Wikipedia now has a big enough audience that professional opinion manipulators are getting involved. I'd like to see your suggestions for alternatives - so would Jimbo, considering his response to the existing forks (Wikinfo, Citizendium). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

wikigoblin?

id like to add a new category of wikipedians similar to the gnomes, that like gnomes and fairies, are not much interested in creating long pieces of articles or large entire articles or participating in editwars, and like me, are less interested in constructive edits in articles at all, and more interested in observing if all is done correct and neutral, and butting in in the talkpages if its not. those that enter sections in the talkpages such as "is this correct" or "shouldnt this be...", as well as suggesting compromises in talkpage debates or editwars, pointing out if a wikipedians arguement is illogical. probably certain types of gnoming could overlap with this such as replacing a word in an article for a word thats either more accurate or neutral or better to understand, or linking words that may require to be linked and such, perhaps filling in some missing information. maybe it could be called a wikigoblin....

this is the kind of editer that i am, and i wonder if there are more. or is this just considered a form of wikignome?· Lygophile has spoken 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

hmm..come to think of it...what i described may possibly just be a combination of a gnome and...a wikidebater or something. but something like that with a term to go with it may need to be added· Lygophile has spoken 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiGrunt?

I find that the name WikiGnome is appealing. However, I'm not sure if it is the appropriate name to use for someone who does, as it were, the grunt work for others. Do any of the rest of you know anyone who might qualify as a wikigrunt? John Carter 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i find the word gnome very appropriate. the idea of wikignoming is very comparable to an inhouse wikipedia brownie· Lygophile has spoken 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikielf?

Check out my proposed new wikirace here. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, User:Wikihermit's contrib list is empty. The above edit/post was actually made by User:CO! WP:SIG, anyone?--Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @912, i.e. 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the wiki woodland creature articles

Hey everyone. You'll notice I made some changes to this article as well as Wikipedia:WikiFairy and Wikipedia:WikiElf and all three of the articles' related cats and userboxes so that certain things were similar across the Wiki Woodland Creature articles.

These aren't really content changes, but things like making sure all of the pages linked to the other two in a See Also section, or making sure that all three articles always capitalized the first letter of whatever came after wiki or making sure that all the articles had the same type of info on their respective userboxes.

In the same line, I tried to keep the format of the userboxes and the category pages similar. I wrote descriptions for the category pages lacking them, and made sure that form stuff was the same on all of them. I also changed the userboxes so that all of the userboxes had linkes to the category as well as the article (only one or two of them had before).

Anyway, like I said no real content changes--this pretty sums up what I did for all three articles except WikiElf where I made a few additional changes. Just wanted to let everyone know, especially as I doubt that any of you watch all of those pages. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

we need an article on wikifauna, that sums these up with "main article ..." added to them, io only a catagory.

also we need a wikiorc, thats not the random vandal as is a wikitroll, but a repeat povpusher. one that goes around..pushing his pov, often accompanied by harassing opposition on the discussion pages, and not for the thrill of breaking rules, as does a wikitroll, but for the motive of pushing his pov. plenty of them around· Lygophile has spoken (admittedly an occasional wikiorc perhaps) 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The WikiGnome userbox is using formatting different from the one used on the WikiFairy and WikiElf boxes. Since the box is used on a lot of userpages, I figured changing it without discussion would be a wrong thing to do, so I made a temporary version and wrote about it on Template talk:User wikipedia/WikiGnome. For now, the temporary version is transcluded on that talk page, but I might subst it at some time so that it doesn't get after the discussion. If you don't want the existing version to be replaced on userpages that already use it, the modified version could get its own template. Please let me know what you think. – Pretended leer {talk} 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's what it would look like when used without parameters:

This editor is a WikiGnome.

Like the original, you can use a number to change the image. And like the fairy and elf userboxes, you can specify your own image, change the colours and change the floating side. I haven't made the font size changeable, but that should be easy enough to do. – Pretended leer {talk} 15:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiOgres

"WikiOgres are considered to be their friend, but not their companion." I don't understand this. What is this intended to mean? --Thinboy00 @255, i.e. 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, and nobody has explained it in almost 2 months, so I am taking it out. I am also making the corresponding change at Wikipedia:WikiOgre and related comments on the talk page there. Wikipedia is not a Role Playing Game. (And if that is not stated in WP:NOT, it should be.) 6SJ7 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When we come out of our caves, we tend to do a lot of the things gnomes do, but we also do a lot of things gnomes certainly would not do (like massive rewrites). Also doesn't apply when we're in our caves, although, like gnomes, we're still hard to see. I don't know what they mean by eating people.

At least that's my take ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the WikiOgre userbox and page is to let people know that they may not get and answer for some months. Some Wikipedians have an expectation that others will always respond to them in a timely manner, leading to frustration and disappointment when dealing with WikiOgres. Knowing that they are dealing with a WikiOgre can relieve some of the frustration. Guy Macon 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Userbox for wikignomes?

Doesn't that defeat the whole idea of being a wikignome? Once you identify yourself as one... you aren't one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.128.60 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(apologies for necroposting) Though I know your comment is tongue-in-cheek, I consider myself a WikiGnome because if I do what I do correctly, no one will notice I've done anything. I try not to draw attention to myself and I don't consider myself nearly as important as those who actually write the articles. If you write an article, you can point to that article and say "Hey, I wrote that." But for people like me, who just make a bunch of minor corrections, we have nothing to point to. That's not very motivational, so I am in the habit of correcting problems only when I notice them while reading and nothing more. But this article gives me a tongue-in-cheek "title" and implicitly says "What you do does matter." For me, at least, it makes me want to do more in order to live up to a (humorous) standard. I even went and adopted a typo. And when I see the WikiGnome userbox, it will remind me to either live up to it or take it down.--Zeldafreakx86 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Real WikiGnomes do not sign up! - 190.48.47.152 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah. Every human has a desire, however small, for attention. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The userbox is helpful so that other users can find a wikignome when they need one. It can also be done just by category, but multiple methods aren't necessarily a bad thing... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose... Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"...find a wikignome when they need one"? shouldn't they be looking for an editor?. I came to the talk page to create this discussion. Glad others noticed the disparity.Cliff (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An editor is helpful in some situations, but sometimes a different type of person is needed. It depends on the situation. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikignomes can be really helpful when you need help working through a certain maintenance category. Most of the Wikifauna have their own individual skill sets that can be put to good use.. Wikifairies for example, are helpful if you need someone to beautify your userpage... Trying to get an article to featured status? Need more references? Ask a WikiDragon to help you out... A belligerent vandal making your wiki experience miserable? Hire a WikiGoon! ;) .. and so on. -- œ^™ 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiring a WikiJaguar is grounds for blockage, though. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Shhh

shhhhh ..... they'll hear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

ASE project: Articles with a Single Editor

Hello fellow WikiGnomes ! Some articles are really needing our help: Articles written by a single editor have a higher probability of needing attention than those which have received contributions from several editors.

So, I have generated a list of all articles that have been written by an inexperienced editor and have not yet received any collaboration. Some of the articles are good, but most need to be fixed or at least flagged appropriately.

Happy WikiGnoming ! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Humor tag

I'm not actually convinced this page needs to be tagged as "humorous".

Its a widely used term for users who perform minor but crucial work, rather than a "humor page". I've removed the humor tag because it might cause people to take it as a "Joke" definition, which it in fact isn't. But of course, it is still under the department of fun :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

topicon

What is the rationale for the change of topicon from a toadstool to a cartoon head, entirely indistinct at topicon size? Is there an emabrgo on using the toadstool icon? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree...the new one is bad. Smarkflea (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The pictures on this page

I just love them. I'm sorry, I know this isn't productive. I just really need to tell you all how much I love the gnome pictures. <3. Stuart Ravn (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiGnome, not mushroom

How do I get a WikiGnome instead of a red mushroom on my talk page?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Do you mean in the top icon? {{WikiGnome topicon}} should do that. And for the userbox, {{User wikipedia/WikiGnome|1}} uses the default image, and changing the number to 2 or 3 changes it to other gnome images. Image number 4 is the mushroom. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Why call them "gnomes"?

Why are WikiGnomes called WikiGnomes? Are there gnomes of folklore that behave similarly to WikiGnomes? Ericandrewlewis (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Gnomes are frequently associated with quiet, almost undetected behavior, or activity when no human is looking. Keeping a garden or house safe and in good working order in ways that almost nobody would ever notice, for instance. Gnomes virtually never call attention to themselves. Compare the typical behavior of wikignomes - minor edits with little or no commentary, fixing problems that content-focused readers and editors would probably never notice. pauli133 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Vunerable

I think Vulnerable should be downgraded to Endangered. Just today I saw 10 wikignomes die right in front of me! TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Potentially untagged misspellings report

Hi! Potentially untagged misspellings (configuration) is a newish database report that lists potentially untagged misspellings. For example, Angolan War of Independance is currently not tagged with {{R from misspelling}} and it should be.

Any and all help evaluating and tagging these potential misspellings is welcome. Once these redirects are appropriately identified and categorized, other database reports such as Linked misspellings (configuration) can then highlight instances where we are currently linking to these misspellings, so that the misspellings can be fixed.

This report has some false positives and the list of misspelling pairs needs a lot of expansion. If you have additional pairs that we should be scanning for or you have other feedback about this report, that is also welcome. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The heroes of Wikipedia are not giants in their fields but so-called WikiGnomes—editors who sweep up typos, arrange articles in neatly categorized piles, and scrub away vandalism. This work is often thankless, but it does not seem to be joyless.

Just so you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Self-identified WikiGnome ?

Has Randall Munroe self-identified as a WikiGnome in this cartoon (see the hover text)? It was referenced in the Wikipedia Signpost (In the media / in brief). Philh-591 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Redirect to WP:LINUX?

Why is there a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux at the top of this article? Scrolling through the edit history, it seems to have been added back in 2009 ([1]) accompanied by an equally cryptic edit summary of "As opposed to WP:KDE?". I'm very tempted to just WP:BOLD and remove it, but given that it has been left there for 14 years, I fear there is a simple, straightforward reason that I'm somehow failing to see. Liu1126 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Gnome is a desktop environment for Linux, according to the disambiguation page. So it's probably best to leave it in. Cerulean Depths (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Description

If you spend all your time on the Wikipedia browsing the recent changes list or jumping to random pages hoping to find something that you can copyedit, you might be a wiki gnome. --Ardonik 09:24, July 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you watchlist disambiguation pages you've worked on, just so you can check every now and then to see if anyone has mistakenly linked to it, you might be a wiki gnome. Catherine\^talk 14:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the exlamation point from spot one, its you might spot one. not you might spot ONE!

People who are disqualified (or perhaps a special case?) are users who make corrections anonymously but also occasionally start flamewars and indulge in wikistalking. Specifically, their aim is not to make the Wikipedia (or general wiki) better, but simply to be right and feed an endless need for self-congradulation and wallow in delusions of superiority. PS I'm not sure what "spot one" refers to, but I believe in the sense of "you MIGHT spot one!" or "YOU might spot one!" could justifiably end with an exclamation point.