User talk:Bigwyrm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

There are many like it, but this one is mine. While here, please consider the following points:

  • If I said something on your talk page or some other talk page, and you want to reply, go back and reply there. I am most likely watching that page.
  • The usual talk page guidelines apply: sign your posts, indent your posts, don't be a dick, start new threads at the bottom, etcetera.
  • I will reorganize, modify headers on, and archive this page occasionally. I look at it more than you do (unless you are stalking me, which is creepy). I will not, however, change anything you say.
  • I will delete spam and flames (unless they are funny, which is always appreciated). Do not vandalize here; vandalize this page instead.
  • I try to carefully consider what I say. For this and other reasons, I often take a very long time to reply. Patience is a virtue.


Thanks for fixing that error I made in the Internet Archive article. ^_^ Linkskywalker 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson?[edit]

I think you are mistaking, the only thing I did was add the Picture to the page, the editor before me wrote the "chicken licken nigger" comment.

  • My apologies. You are correct: I was mistaken. Bigwyrm 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


i replied to your comment.i would appreciate if you can take your time and respond to it.thanks againGrandia01 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will pass on that. I already explained and expanded my thoughts on the subject. You were the one who added the material in question, so I can only assume that you believe that your understanding of the material is accurate. I would now like to elicit the opinions of others. -- Bigwyrm 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent report to WP:AIV[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for making a report about (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khukri (talkcontribs) 07:15, 15 July 2007

Well, I really think that the block criteria were met, but no worries. User(s) at this IP vandalize Wikipedia often enough that I'll have ample opportunity to repost the report.  — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On votestacking and general shenanigans in Deletion Review[edit]

for the uninitiated

To various Wikipedians involved in the Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians deletion review, I would like to offer the following apologies:

  1. In general, I would like to apologize for my complete lack of subtlety in handling that. I am sure that there was a better way to establish a genuine dialog. I still do not know what that better way was, but I am sorry that I did not find it before acting.
  2. More specifically, I would like to apologize for starting that mess and then vanishing. Early on, I suffered a Loss of Cool Casualty, which would not have helped matters. It would have been more wrong for me to stay and flame, but it was still wrong for me to leave.
  3. When I started to identify people who should have been involved, I was selective. I tried to limit the list to people who were both recently active editors and those who had shown a genuine interest in one or more of the related subjects. As I worked on it, I became much less meticulous. I included a number of people who may have had little to no genuine interest in the related categories. I also made mention of the review on three article talk pages; this was clearly inappropriate. To the people whom I annoyed with all of this, I apologize.
  4. On the other hand, I failed to notify some people who should have been involved. I notified very few of the Invisible Pink Unicornists, and I think none of the Cthulu Cultists. They should have had the opportunity to share their opinions and insights. I also did not notify any members of the previous discussion (aside from the closing admin). They also deserved the opportunity to respond. Fortunately, another editor took it upon himself to notify some of those editors. Nevertheless, I apologize to the people whom I failed to notify.
  5. When I wrote up my summary of the previous discussion, I included an account of the efforts of some of the involved editors. Portions of that account were terse to the point of inaccuracy and even mean-spirited. I apologize to those people whom I unfairly mischaracterized.

  — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good morning. I noticed that you have been sending messages to users who were in a category that was under DRV. I would like to inform you that this is votestacking, and is frowned upon by the community. Please stop sending these messages immediately, or you may be blocked for disruption. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we also call that "collaboration" when we approve of the way things are going. Also, while I think the four editors who have a run on that table would agree with you, I also think that other editors have a right to a fair deal in the discussion. Thanks for your input, though.   — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A 'fair deal' would involve informing both sides of the discussion, or cross-posting into a neutral area, rather than seeking out users who you know would vote to overturn. Have you seen WP:CANVASS? --ST47Talk·Desk 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a place to invite people who want to delete every user category? Oh, you probably don't know the background here. Hey, watch Wikipedia:User categories for discussion for a while. Moreover, read the Wikipedians by religion discussion and review. Again, the review is the second one down. Even after the consensus was an overwhelming keep, they closed it as delete, regardless. Also, no notification was given to members of those categories that the category was even up for "discussion". The first thing most of them noticed was that their userpages were being edited by a bot, telling them that their religion had been revoked. I invite you to remove that comment from the current review, but I suspect that you won't.   — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No notification was given to members of those categories because such notification is not appropriate. Do we notify the editors of every article in a category when that category is nominated for deletion? Of course not. Notification would have been appropriate if their userpages were the subject of the deletion discussion, but that was clearly not the case.
By the way, which of my actions in the Wikipedians by religion debate did you find objectionable? You also noted that I delete "a lot of things" ... well, I've deleted about 1000 pages in a two-month period that saw at least 250 thousand pages deleted. I don't know if 0.4% counts as a lot, but is there a particular deletion that you disagree with? Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with you on the point that notification was inappropriate.
Categorization, in the case of articles, is a way of saying, "This subject has something in common with these subjects." Putting an article into a category adds a wealth of ontological baggage. Categorization allows readers to easily find related articles and, for better or worse, changes the spirit of an article by identifying that connection. Editors with an interest in a given article also (whether they know it or not) have an interest in that article's categories.
Likewise, user categorization is a way of saying, "This person has something in common with these people." Adding oneself to a category displays a weath of epistemological baggage. This describes the spirit of a user in a way that no passage of text possibly could. Users most certainly have an interest in their own categories. Beyond their potential for encouraging people to get involved in relevant articles, categories allow users to say, "I am a part of that."
I described your input to the first Wikipedians by religion discussion as "ranting". For that, I again apologize. You remained calm, and you clearly expressed your opinions. I still disagree with your distaste for user categories. The system as a whole could be a great benefit to Wikipedia if improved. Many individual categories need to be cleaned up, and some even deleted. It is a productive act to delete that which needs to be pruned. However, cleanup and improvment is nearly impossible in a heavily deletionist environment. I watched several users come to UCfD with merge and rename requests which were promptly hammered with with a series of delete votes. I have a few ideas about how to encourage people to make better use of the user categories, so that people can look at their user categories and say, "I am a part of something productive," but I don't know how to encourage people to make improvements rather than gutting the entire system. There, I'm lost.
Thank you for responding intelligently, both here and on the discussion pages.   — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up! 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion categories[edit]

Hi. I just want to express my appreciation for your detailed and thought-out responses to my comments regarding the deletion of the various religion categories. Even though I don't exactly agree with the assumption on which your argument is grounded, it's the most coherent and well-reasoned argument I've seen for retaining those categories. Since I was on wikibreak, I didn't get an opportunity to respond to your individual posts; I've posted a reply at the JW discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

General Order merge tag[edit]

Thanks for removing the merge tags - after doing the merge I was distracted by another page and forgot to clean up after the change. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Yeast[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Yeast/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of PSI Seminars for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PSI Seminars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSI Seminars until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bigwyrm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)