Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:59, 30 December 2005

Welcome!

Hello Beckjord, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe

Zoe. What is happening on the Bigfoot page is that a skeptic is trying to stop good edits from a professional in that field.

DreamGuy is that ****.

beckjordBeckjord 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe is not always right

Zoe.

She says

We have a couple of editors who claim to have seen Bigfoot, and are unable to accept the possibility that other people don't believe them.

Wrong. I can accept that lots of people do not believe. This is America. beckjordBeckjord 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When skeptical information and references to skeptics are included in the article, they insist on deleting it.

Wrong. I delete a libellous reference, (50 items, resulting in lawsuit)and I CORRECT skeptical errors and altered bad info from uninormed skeptics who __do no research__ beckjordBeckjord 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord thinks they're transdimensional beings who can move between dimensions.

Wrong. I say they could be, and we have proof. beckjordBeckjord 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep getting people adding their comments to the talk of the page and I have to hunt through the whole thing to find them, I thought stealing your message link might help.

If he has reverted again, after my warning, I'll have to block him. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I was never warned. I saw something, AFTER I was blocked. You thinkl people read messages instantly?

beckjordBeckjord 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like we're supposed to believe somebody who scorns consensus with "amateurs". User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I DO scorn "concensus" with people who have no experience in the field, do not read the lit and who often can be just high school drop outs with a computer. In science, "concensus" is done with QUALIFIED PEOPLE. Usually, with advanced degrees in the topic. In Wiki, you can be a total nobody and then edit. As for belief, I have photos that some professionals do like. Also, how ya gonna prove interdimensionsal travel? It will take 1000 years to get the tools. Zoe- I do not care if you personally believe, but if you work witrh DreamGuy, you are on the dark side. You guys seem to feel that the skeptical side is worth 50% when they do only 1% research. What they do, (sit) is not worth two sec of reading.

More disgusted with Wiki each day.

beckjordBeckjord 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" with three editors who do not know the topic is meaningless.

beckjordBeckjord 19:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening is that you and Martial Law are trying to rule the page, and nobody can claim ownership of a page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

endless edits

I see this all over Wiki, in all topics.

Makes me not respect Wiki. Neither does NY Times.

beckjordBeckjord 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe

No. It is DreamGuy the skeptic who is trying to rule the page.

Think about this --- he keeps deleting back to where it says that Bigfoot has SMALL eyes

and a SMALL head. This is obvious foolishness, not backed by any reference, and all the authors say the opposite.

And do not tell me to "work it out" with dg. He does not respond. He is a vandal.

beckjordBeckjord 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Bigfoot page edited better, outside of Wiki

See ongoing edits trying to make this page real, go to http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/wikipage.html There at least, fools, idiots,skeptics, and morons (nobody is named here) cannot do endless reverts and edits.

beckjordBeckjord 20:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember:....

Keep things civil, NO more personal attacks on anyone, no more inflamatory material at all, not even in the slightest. A Admin has threatened to have you blocked to end this dispute, thus is why I am offering you and other disputants the use of MY user page, so I can mediate this matter without disturbing others.

I'll see what THE BOSS has said. If he favors you, I'll tell you. If he has NOT,I'll tell you. He is the boss. This is the equivalent of going before The King, a person who can have you summarily tossed out. Martial Law 22:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jimbo

I blush -- I went on his page, discussed the situation, and am not sure he replied to my page, because I screwed up and erased lots of the page because there was a big overload, and maybe I erased what he may have said, if he said anything. I guess I'll go back to his page and see if he said anything there.

beckjordBeckjord 07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far, nothing at this time.

By the way, a User:Cyde Weys says that Bigfoot has died in 11-26-2002, and that you are incorrect about photographing him 17 times. Bigfoot was the nickname of a Ray Wallace, who appearantly had BIG feet.

CydeWeys or Cyde Weys

Please show me proof Bigfoot died in 11-16-02 Please tell me why my photos are not true, or rather, why you do not like them. BTW, I knew Ray Wallce, in person, and his feet were normal. His fake feet could not make a mark in most dirt because the user never had much weight. Also his fake feet never moved, and left the same mark, if any, a dead giveaway. No flexibilty, as any 10 yr old could see.

Reply here.

Martial Law - contact me on email and use a free email account that you can get at http://www.yahoo.com -- I have lots of info for you, on a personal basis. My email is rudy(at) stealthaccess.net A number of Wiki people have gone to my email.

beckjordBeckjord 07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will have my E-mail examined real shortly. Hopefully, it'll be fixed. Martial Law 08:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy E-mail: Another User accuses You of criminal action User Beckjord

Another User told me that you had allegedly sent him some bugs in his E-mail. Am investigating, since sending viruses is a Federal Offense/Criminal offense, may also be classed as terrorisim, and this can have the Feds after you. This is no insult, accusation,etc. at all. Again, will investigate. Is this what you are referring to when you say that people are out to, as you say, to "get you" ? The 9-11 attacks has made this sort of crime worse.Martial Law 08:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Martial Law 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

let him prove it

no fear.

I do not know __how__ to send viruses.

Let him report me. He will have to use his REAL NAME ! :-)

beckjordBeckjord 09:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, keep this civil, thus NO

Profanity
Inflamatory remarks
Uncivil behavior.
Personal Attacks

None of this @ any time @ all. This is Wikipedia policy. As stated, a Admin. has stated that he will block you, maybe have you tossed for being disruptive.

Another reason to be real civil: This User is a woman, and if you're "Old School", you do NOT use any bad language/ uncivil language around women at all.

Of course, she may be just joking. Wikipedians often do this. Do NOT take offense. Martial Law 04:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seen you post to the Boss. You're progressing well. One other thing, lose that other account before someone gets the idea you're using sockpuppets, and that can be used against you. YUCK !

stop this

Sometimes people forget to log in, and this makes you think they are a sock puppet (big Wiki paranoia) when they really just forgot to log in. Besides, I always sign my name. Remember, Wiki is a big joke and mishmash with 524 people, it is said, doing 50% of all edits, and imho, the main "trip" jhere is not information, but disrupting other people's article pages with edits and reverts. DreamGuy himself, with a Wiki-warning label saying "This site is not considered accurate, (etc)" on his Mythology page, had dozens of users editing and reverting on that page of his. All over, on almost all pages, people with no knowledge, or just a little knowledge (worse) are editing, editing, reverting, reverting, thousands of times a day or more. Click,click, punch,punch, over and over. Revert, re-re-revert, re-re-re-revert, and so on. An endless mess. I'm not sure if one's own name-page, or name-article page, like my own, is sacred and untouchable, butr if it is, I may have to add sections in it, if allowed, to describe what Bigfoot is or is not, since the Bigfoot official page is always a mess, with reverts, and re-reverts, etc, all the time, that eliminate often good changes. Each article is a roiling sea, a soup boiling, always changing, and not always for the better.

End of rant.

beckjordBeckjord 07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As new verified ( WP:V ) info is discovered, the old info. is tossed as being out of date and obsolete. When you Edit the Bigfoot article, for instance, you need at least four (4) verifiable sources of info. This reduces the chances of your edit being tossed. Martial Law 09:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, DreamGuy will toss it anyway

got it?

beckjordBeckjord 09:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my User page and see WP:SOCK protocol. I am NOT insulting, accusing you of anything @ all, just stating a major concern. Martial Law 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, a sockpuppet is like a really servere case of the Shingles. Martial Law 04:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

explain this in detail

do not get it.

beckjordBeckjord 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask David Letterman about the Shingles. Martial Law 04:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ask david

Sure, next time we have lunch.

-)

BeckjordBeckjord 07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde Weys

Sideways -- good movie.

Well, only gullible people accept newspaper reports about "Bigfoot exposed as hoax!"

Ray Wallace (I knew him) was a genial old fraud who made one lousy Bigfoot hoax movie with perhaps his wife in a monkey suit. I watched it in his home and laughed. Too funny to get upset over.

Bigfoot has been seen in Florida, and in Ohio, (by me) and in Hawaii. I doubt old Ray could get there. There are 18,000 or so sightings since 1811. I doubt Ray was there in 1811, nor in the other places. Do not believe all you read in the papers. I also doubt Ray could jump over my head from a tree, disappear, and then leave 16 inch tracks in mud and grass, that led to a fence, and then jumped, (say two witnesses) and NEVER COME DOWN. No tracks in next 200 ft of mud. Pure mud.

Nope, not ol' Ray....

---gotcha!!!!!

All wikians who want private talk, email me at rudy(at)stealthaccess.net

Now, Cyde Ways or is it Cyde ?

You, say,"Aha, so we have a Bigfoot person here..."

well, then get DreamGuy off my a**. OK? He is the "Revert King of Bigfoot Page"

has a nice ring to it--- 'The Revert King".

-)

beckjordBeckjord 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$1M Bounty on Bigfoot withdrawn / Bigfoot Sources on Google / Beckjord on Google

You have to see this link:

$1,000,000 Bigfoot Bounty Withdrawn

For you, persuant to Wikipedia Civility deal: On Google, found:

Bigfoot-Creature: 332,000 websites and data sites.

Bigfoot:Cryptid: 12,300 websites and data sites.

Go to www.boingboing.net, then go to the archives page if the incl. link is malfunctioning. Martial Law 09:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is old

but thanks.

BeckjordBeckjord 09:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Total found: 354,300 websites and data sites concerning the Bigfoot creature found using the Google Search Engine Martial Law 09:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians want verifiable sources ? You have them. Some of these sources believe it is a ape, some believe it is a myth or mental illness, some believe it is a paranormal entity. Martial Law 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search on subject: User:Beckjord: 18,100 websites, data sites. @ least 1/2 are hostile to this subject, the other 1/2 are friendly towards this subject. Martial Law 09:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your search

18,000 sites on Beckjord or Bigfoot?

I would think Bigfoot.

Only a few sites are worth a damn.

beckjordBeckjord 09:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bf sites dedicated or mentioned?

most just mention. Far less are dedicated to topic. \ Less than ten are worth a damn.

Most started by anonymous teens.

BTW, Cyde Ways impressed I am here, for good or for evil.

beckjordBeckjord 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE.: Your Search

18,100 websites and data sites on YOU. Martial Law 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly 354,300 websites and data sites on Bigfoot as creature and cryptid. Enjoy. Martial Law 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also RE.: $1,000,000 Bounty on Bigfoot link. Pixes of a real Bigfoot is around $90,000. Cheers. Martial Law 09:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-at the time the news was announced, in 2005, on the indicated link. Martial Law 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$90,000

post details and source.

beckjordBeckjord 09:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Law

call me now, this second, 510-633-2526

fear not.

beckjordBeckjord 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REVERT TRAP

User:Cyde has accused you of this: Original Research in the Bigfoot article.

DO NOT FALL INTO IT. IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. They want you to REVERT them. DON'T DO THIS !!!!

They know you'll revert this matter, thus is the trap, to get you blocked. Martial Law 10:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE.: Source: / RE.: $90,000

www.boingboing.net/2005/10/18/1_million_cryptid_bo.html - Both the now withdrawn $1,000,000 and the $90,000 for a pix. Was a promo for a RPG - Role Playing Game, such as Magic, The Gathering.Martial Law 10:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

editing bigfoot page

if I cannot edit this page, there is no point in being part of Wikipedia.

Also, my past edits did contain references and sources.

Also, Martial Law , when will you call me (show courage most Wiki people do-not-have-

and call me.)? I have hot news!

beckjordBeckjord 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reverting items that were put in by DreamGuy on his judgement

Now DG is saying that it is wrong to list websites for reporting a sighting, because he says it is silly, and not something a pedia should be doing. Yet, in WIKI there are three sites that do allow this type of thing for those topics.

NOw if I restore the item, can he get me blocked? I am GETTING SO SICK OF WIKI.

I am beginning to not care. There are things I am learning about Wiki from former members that make me disgusted. Things other wiki members do know, but ignore. Cannot discuss it here, sorry, Wiki police.... Entire place smacks of the book "1984" by George Orwell. Beware "Big Brother".....always watching YOU!

So, how do I edit out the b*ll Sh*t that DG puts in and how do I restore items I put in that he deleled without getting blocked? Hey, all you spies? All you folks who listen in?Tell me. Because what DG is doing is flat wrong. Much of Wiki is flat wrong. The entire concept is wrong. PEOPLE WHO DO NOT READ THE LIT, SHOULD NOT EDIT.

beckjordBeckjord 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coast To Coast AM

If you got news, take it to the radio show Coast To Coast AM. Found some Wikipedians who actually listen to the show. Just keep me out of it., and don't rant and lose your temper on the show either. I've seen evidence that Art Bell and George Noory have tossed guests out for less.

By the way, when do you go on the show again ? Martial Law 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

c to c

they are capricious and put on hoaxers and thieves more often than me.

My news is for you, personally. Wiki police are listening to this page.

call.

beckjordBeckjord 19:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If and when I get the chance. Martial Law 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shockers

Want to buy a Bigfoot suit ? Go to Rent/Buy Bigfoot Costumes http://www.mcavendesigns.com to rent or buy a Bigfoot suit. THAT IS THE MOST STUPID THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. WHAT ARE THESE IDIOTS ON ? GOOD WAY TO GET SHOT BY SOMEONE ! Martial Law 20:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to access this one off Wikipedia. Martial Law 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why?

why keep repeating this? We got the point a week ago.

beckjordBeckjord 05:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot Suit ?

Yes, the store link is on this link: Unexplainable Homepage Martial Law 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Type in http//:www,unexplainable.net/bigfoot to access the place selling these apalling suits.Martial Law 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

repeat

You are obsessed with bigfoot suits. Time to move on.

beckjordBeckjord 21:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proves that there are idiots who will hoax a bigfoot. Martial Law 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Beckjord, I would like to help you, but I simply don't know how. The only way I can help you is if your edits are defensible. You need to learn some writing/research and debateing skills, as well as some tact.

No- I am dealing with deliberate vandalism

my opponents are SET on keeping negative info, even if they have to fabricate it or make false changes to good info. There is NO "good faith". These are not good people. You are naive, DanielCD.

beckjordBeckjord 05:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can learn this, but I know I don't have time anymore to help you. Your views are not scientifically backed up,

you do not get it

there is no scientific funding for Bigfoot research. All the real work is done by laymen.

I show you the best there is, as it is, and you need to view that and not expect Professor X to get out there and find the same things, because nobody will PAY him to go.NO FUNDING. There is no science in Bigfoot, DanielCD. No grants, no funding. And the scientists do not know where to start anyway. We do. Did you EVER think this was a scientific subject? Proof of my claims -- visit me, and see the Brian Smith video of disappearing tracks IN PERSON. Buy a plane ticket, fly out. dDid you expect us to place the video on Wiki to please UNKNOWN people??? Reallllllllyyy.

beckjordBeckjord 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and they have no backing other than you or someone else's say so.  There are rules to scholarship and debate that simply cannot be bypassed without throwing out credibility as well.

repeat

science is NOT involved in Bigfoot. Our say-so? What about multible witnesses? Are we chopped liver? Do we all need a PhD? THERE IS NO DEAD BODY TO EXAMINE, DANIELCD. It is paranormal.

beckjordBeckjord 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is not the content of your edits anyway, it's the way you format them. They have to be in harmony with the entire article. You can't just throw sections in on this and that.

Judge the entries on their merits. Not style. \ beckjordBeckjord 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, good luck. --DanielCD 21:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

defensible edits and DanielCD

I DO make good references, and then the Bad Guys delete them, ANYWAY.

There seems to be no rule that makes a good reference keep an item. Bad people, and they DO exist in Wiki, (some) will delete or revert, regardless of the references quoted. This makes them vandals.

" Wickipedia, where the Vandals are in charge". -- Jon-Erik Beckjord

beckjordBeckjord 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE.:Zoe

Will investigate. also go to Wikipedia:Administrators and click on "List of Administrators". Martial Law 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This individual is not listed as one, so it is likely this individual is not a Admin @ all. Martial Law 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe is #616 (heh) on the Active admins list.

I have seen the list. Must be a recent addition. Martial Law 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot info....

In 1996, in the form of what is known as the "Daily Activity Report", an internal National Park Service report that is not in any way confidential, but is not circulated through the newspapers...a report was filed by employees and visitors of an apparent sighting. The creature was witnessed by no less than 7 individuals and it ocurred in Idaho, I believe near Nez Perce National Historical Park. One of the witnesses was a wildlife biologist apparently. It may have made the press. I saw the report as I am a former employee of ther National Park Service and was stationed in Grand Teton at the time. It might be worth your while to seek this report out.

I am curious why the Bigfoot article doesn't go into the issue of sustainability of population. I know that mountain lions exist in large part due to sightings which are about 50 times more frequent than Bigfoot sightings. But few people ever see a mountain lion because they are predominantly nocturnal and they have tremendous vision, hearing and can smell people long before they get near. I have seen 3 mountain lions in my lifetime of working for the NPS and growing up in Montana. Reports by the NPS estimates at least 300 mountain lions in the Yellowstone ecosystem...a region of almost 20 million acres. The NPS maintains that if the population were to drop below 70, it would have limited chances of maintaining themselves due to possible inbreeding, and related issues...just finding a mate would be difficult at times. As with most higher mammals, the mountain lion does not produce a signicant number of offspring. Most primates (of which Bigfoot is supposedly one) produce few offspring and do not reproduce every year. Now forgive me for not providing all the necessary external linking for this argument, but how many bigfoots do you estimate exist, and is this number a sufficient number to maintain themselves?--MONGO 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Mongo for report

Bigfoot creatures cannot sustain themselves on a normal biological system. They __would need__ 16,000 calories a day and this cannot be obtained from the habitat, and they would leave huge piles of poop, and lots of it, and they do not.

Hence, they are outside the normal system.

Now go to the Bigfoot page, which is beset by die-hard skeptix, and revert to my last good version. Delete their biased and stupid junk. If I do it too much, I violate the 3RRR rule.

beckjordBeckjord 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you do a read on no original research and verifiability. You can't just upload info that is not cited by reputable sources.--MONGO 09:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

You know that I will not lie to you.

Call off this Edit war @ once before things REALLY get out of hand. I have seen what happens in these wars. They're not beutiful at all. This will only cause massive disruptions on Wikipedia, and once Jimbo Wales sees your declaration of war( Its posted all over the place, like a 1,000' billboard), he will remove you. I'm imploring you to call off this war. There are ways of resolving these disputes. Call this war off, and I'll see what I can find on the Bigfoot websites. Martial Law 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

declaration of war is removed

I love everybody. Let there be peace. Zoe, DreamGuy, Cyde, DanielCD. Martial Law.

beckjordBeckjord 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith Gesture

Here are 2 websites and data sites that you may find useful. What is your opinion of these ?

Alien site says Bigfoot IS a Interdimensional alien- Click on alien species, then click on Bigfoot/Sasquatch.
More Bigfoot Encounters - Man sees a Bigfoot NINE times.

More to follow IF and when this war is called off, and there is no more mess of this nature. This is evidence of the Interdimensional Bigfoot that is independent evidence, not on your site, yet agree with you. Martial Law 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to anything that can disrupt Wikipedia. As stated, I will NOT lie to you.

If something disrupts Wiki policies, I will let you know. My User page has a list of Wikipedia resources on it. It would be a good idea to use them. I have not lied to you, I will not lie to you now either. Martial Law 06:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance to the above, see WP:V. You say these things are interdimensional, Wikipedia wants you to verify your info.

reply

I never said Bigfoot,etc, "are" interdimensional. I said they "could be". This is called speculation and physics people and all scientists do it often. Making theories.

please take note.

beckjordBeckjord 07:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No,no,no

I never said they *are* interdimensional. I said this is a Bold textTHEORY. Ae wiki people st*pid? Ever hear of the word "maybe" ? I said Bigfoot might be interdimensional, and we Bold textdo have a possible form of proof. Now Zoe, Cyde, DreamGuy and othres, read this. Bonk!

beckjordBeckjord 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit war?

there is no war. I will simply win and delete BAD info, lies, or I will leave,and if so, reveal truth about certain people ....to the outside world, which DOES exist outside of wiki.

beckjordBeckjord 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use @ least 4 or 6 other websites, data sites, such as these two given here. Martial Law 06:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Pills, Urrp

This is a bitter pill to swallow: Leave out your website - for now - out of the Bigfoot article. Martial Law 06:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Had to take one the size of Bigfoot myself. Martial Law 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have another one: You have to remove your war declaration OFF of all of the Wiki pages, or someone may get the wrong idea, and I've seen where that leads. Martial Law 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

things going on we are not told of

what is going on?

What pill?

beckjordBeckjord 06:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War ?

You'll have to remove your war declaration off of your website. If a bunch of skeptics see this and "go to war" on Wikipedia, guess who gets the blame. Seen this happen before on other places. Martial Law 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the bad guys rule Wiki.

I am not declaring war on wiki. I am simply against deliberately false and lying info.

The skeptics? They are already here. Wikians.

beckjordBeckjord 07:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

When I warn you not to engage in personal attacks, you are not permitted to respond with a personal attack (in the form of vandalism and politically-motivated threats & insults). You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You may edit this talk page if you can keep it civil. El_C 07:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Daddy

If nasty men call me names, I cannot call them back.

beckjordBeckjord 07:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Customizing User page

As long it is NOT offensive, vindictive,indecent, obscene, inflamatory( rants, attacks, that sort of thing),profane at all - in a nutshell -IF there is nothing in the slightest that can offend anyone at all on your User page, you can customize it. To be on the SAFE side, I'd contact a Admin. once the 48 hr. block has expired, about this matter. As for the article Bigfoot itself, I'll keep a eye on it. Martial Law 08:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just got the news of this block. I was examining your question about your User page. Martial Law 08:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be back on 1-1-06, or 1-2-06. Martial Law 08:55, 29 December 2005

The unfairness continues

there are 1000 ways to p*ss someone off in Wiki.

beckjordBeckjord 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search: Erick Beckjord

Google Search Results on subject: User:Beckjord:19,000

Some support him, some oppose him. Martial Law 09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo

Mongo, all my sources are reputable. Bigfoot and the paranormal have very little journal entries, so we must rely on websites and Wiki IS a website, and newsletters, personal letters as are OK in journal citations (I've seen them listed). Attn Zoe, Cyde,DanielCD.

WIKIANS AFTER FAIR EDITING

WAFE is now forming, to assist newbies in getting important edits into pages that will stick.

Contact me if you want to join.

beckjordBeckjord 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really. You have more information ? Martial Law 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman

is there for for Wiki?

beckjordBeckjord 18:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe

Be aware please that learning all the ins and outs of Wiki, is a formiddable task.

Takes hours, and one soon forgets.

Few have the time nor dedication to do it. Also many of the rules are unpleasant and against common sense for a web-based pedia. This is not print, it is online.

I ask you, and others to join Wikians After Fair Edits, WAFE, and please assist me and others to insert legit edits that correct grossly wrong text in articles. Such as black is white, left is right,, down is up, etc.

Also DanielCD.

I note that edits tend to stick if an admin does it. We need your help.

Happy New Year to all,

beckjordBeckjord 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Law

can you find out how many hits a day go to various pages? Such as Bigfoot, Nessie, CZ, UFOs, Crop Circles and my name page. ????

Please help.

beckjordBeckjord 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that one: it's not possible, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way to list a reference for a change

How is it done? In text of change? In the notes block? Is this read BEFORE someone hits revert? Are they ALLOWED to revert a legit referenced change?

beckjordBeckjord 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a reference can be done several ways. On the Bigfoot article, there are Footnotes, References, and External links, so that's a good example of all three. Footnotes are the biggest pain, and frankly, they aren't done correctly on Bigfoot. If you don't mind, we'll skip that right now because its a complicated process. Sources are usually, as they are on Bigfoot, "paper" sources - Books with an ISBN. And External links are, of course, external links to other sites. There are some rules about what is considered a good source. Blogs are not sources. Major news sites are. Very good is a published reference online, as you would find at PubMed, for instance.

The simplest way to add a ref is in the text, and its also considered a little sloppy, but here it is: You write your text, then add a link inside two brackets at the end [ and ]. That makes the link look like this[1]

A lot more information can be found at WP:CITE and WP:V, I suggest you give those a quick read.

Remember that there is no original research allowed - the policy on that is at WP:NOR. If George W. Bush sent me a letter and told me his favorite color, I couldn't post it - but if it is reported in a verifiable source, such as an interview on a major news site, I could. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

references and sources

KillerChiuahua - (arf, arf) Look, the issue here is that LOTS of new research has been done and there is NO PLACE to report it, except newsletters, and websites. If you want Wiki to be "cutting edge" you have to relax the rules and stop insisting on books. Even the media tends to report any research is a tongue in cheek manner or with contempt. I mean, jeez, it takes sometimes years to get good info into a book, and to get the book out.

Now, you, KC, how about assisting by adding these references:

The Locals, Thom Powell, Hancock House, 2003, ISBN 0-88839-552-3

and

The Bigfoot Files, Peter Guttilla, Timeless Voyager Press, 2003, ISBN 1-892264-15-3

If I list them, my GOOD BUDDY DreamGuy will delete them, as he has already recently.

Ditto Bishonen -- need help. OK Bijin?

beckjordBeckjord 07:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look them up first - I have to confirm where and how they are relevent. Its a reasonable rule, it makes sure people don't just slap lists of books on a page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DanielCD

can you edit the word "coarse" personality out of the Beckjord article and put in "aggressive"?

That is more accurate. The former is insulting and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Thanks

beckjordBeckjord 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've changed it. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen

Much thanks.

BeckjordBeckjord 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?!

You know a Mr. Krantz ? He is the one who told people to shoot at Bigfoot. Found other websites and data sites that tell of people shooting at this thing, and in one case blood has been found after someone shot one. Do a Google search on these:

Killing Bigfoot/Bigfoot
Shooting Bigfoot/Bigfoot

I've done this myself, and found this other guy who says people should shoot these things, as well as websites reporting people shooting at these things. Martial Law 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got four links that is about this. Go to the Bigfoot article and view these links, under this..... Martial Law 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links under "Bigfoot Shot at" on the discussion page, as Links 1-4. Martial Law 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shooting cases,etc.

I knew Dr Krantz in person. Face to face. He was a backstabbing rat. Now passed on, and never saw a Bigfoot, probably due to his attitude re shooting one.

Re shooting, I am aware of many claims and cases, but the bottom line is no bigfoot is ever killed, and no bigfoot body is ever recovered. IMHO, Bigfoot cannot be killed. They just withdraw into a Wormhole and zap- are not here.

You can pretty much assume I know all websites and all data, most all books, and articles. But your learning these things is good.

beckjordBeckjord 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for you

I have posted several comments and questions directly for you at Talk:Erik Beckjord, under the headings "Beckjord's latest edit" and "Interim report on major edit". I realize that you can't reply there while you're blocked, but I hope you will as soon as possible once the block expires. Note especially my request for citations for BIRO and the museums, as I'm giving the article a bit of a NPOV cleanup, and I need more of verifiable basis for those things. Web references would be fine in this instance. (P. S. Man, your Table of Contents is a mess from those headings. Please just hit "Edit" and look at how my heading here is typed. Please.) Bishonen | talk 01:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

correct name for page

should be Jon-Erik Beckjord,aka Erik Beckjord.

beckjordBeckjord 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This not clear, but will look and try to answer here

Like what Table of contents is a mess? Did I do that?

What do you mean "how my heading here is typed" ? Just tell me what I ought to type. You must understand I am a total newbie in Wiki, and do not know even 2% of what you know. I am only here, BTW, to clean up these bad,bad articles on BF, Nessie, CZ, Crop Circles and UFOs. No time to get into other topics. However, it looks to me as if once a topic is cleaned up, some bozo will come along and screw it up all over again. Very depressing.

Again - how do we see the hits?

beckjordBeckjord 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I tell you above (under where you asked about it, heading: "Martial Law"), there's unfortunately no way of seeing the hits. YOUR Table of Contents, on this page, is a mess, because when you write bigger headings than other people do, their smaller (=normal) headings are treated as subheadings of yours by the software. This hierarchy shows up in the ToC here. And on all other pages you edit, too. This'll make the fourth time I tell you what to type, so c'mon, please focus already. Type TWO equals signs before and after the heading text, not ONE equals sign. Type this: ==. Not this: =. Your heading for this section is in edit mode "=This not clear, but will look and try to answer here=". Instead, please type "==This not clear, but will look and try to answer here==". OK?

You're new, and so you deserve help, but you shouldn't mistake me for a friend and supporter. This is my opinion: your article editing is very biased. You keep insulting DreamGuy, who is editing far more neutrally and encyclopedically than you. Stop calling him a vandal, if you want any respect in this place. The ins and outs of wiki editing are complicated and hard to learn, but you seem to be using that fact as an excuse for not trying to learn *anything*: reading a policy page is too much trouble. And, finally, you've attacked a highly respected admin who has been patient with you, User:El C, in a crass and idiotic way. You were blocked for good cause. I understand that you're only here to edit the articles you're specifically interested in, but if you go on like this you'll soon find yourself permanently blocked, and not able to edit them either. Did you read my note on the admins' noticeboard and some of the comments to it? As you can see, people are starting to question why we should keep somebody who behaves like you around at all. See this and this.

Could you please reply to my questions about cites for Erik Beckjord on Talk:Erik Beckjord, where I asked them, when you're unblocked? This isn't a private conversation, I want other people who take an interest in the article to see it, and maybe have some input. That's what article talk pages are for. But I can tell you right now that, yes, I'd seen the Bigfoot page on your website, and that's not what I meant by a "BIRO web presence". Basically, what that page tells me is "BIRO is Erik Beckjord". Not good enough. The way it's mentioned in Erik Beckjord makes it sound like a big, serious organisation with, you know, members and stuff. Again, compare the BFRO website. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Bishonen (Bijin)

Look, the rules and quirks of Wiki are endless and would take many months to absorb. I do appreciate your help, and I am seeking an agent, or mentor, or facilitator who can take basic _errors_ in the existing text and correct them, and clean them up, provide the other side, and the so-called neutral side. This may be oyu, and if so, I am very grateful. I have no clue as to how to make changes that stick and are not immediately reverted by biased (very biased) enemies and skeptics. I see them reverting even well-references changes and items. Seems no law here exists to stop them. Fortunately, they cannot edit my website that is outside of Wiki, and there I am setting up the Wiki Bigfoot page, slowly edited, and un-revertable, so readers can see the real deal. Be that as it may, I hope with help, to get the Wiki Bigfoot article here edited properly, and it just may be that someone else's name must be on it, to avoid "Beckjord-hatred" and bias. Your help and advice is appreciated.

Now, let's look at the basic top of the article. Some fool has claimed Bigfoot has "small" eyes and "small" head. Thjis is grossly intrue, I've seen otherwise and many others, in references, have as well. Yet, some **** keeps going back to "small". How can this be stoped or changed?

Then, we have the reference to Dr. Rosen doing EXACTLY WHAT HE DID NOT DO re hairs, and in one of my past attempts at edits, between 12/24 and 12/27 , the history page shows what is correct. How can this be made to "stick" ?

There is more, like getting rid of the weak author Lloyd Pye, who never did nor saw diddly. I see NO references or quotes from John Green, Rene Dahinden, Krantz, Byrne, TITMUS, or, of course, me. Yet we go back to 1975 and even earlier.

Lots to do. Now, how does one see the hits on a page in Wiki??? Where are the stats? How many outsiders are coming in to see this awful Wiki Bigfoot article?

Getting direct answers in Wiki, is like almost never....

beckjordBeckjord 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN EDITS

If an admin or bureacrat makes an edit, is it more likely to be kept?

beckjordBeckjord 07:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord should not edit the article about himself Beckjord keeps making changes to the article, which is clearly inappropriate. He certainly is known to have a lot of bias in general, but of course he's going to be majorly biased about himself and want to try to spin the article to try to advance himself. DreamGuy 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

not true. DreamGuy, guy with no real name

I try to present just events and facts. YOU try to block out info re those events. "Balance" is a false concept, when skeptics, like you, do no research. I once took a skeptic lady into the woods in AZ for three days. She found Bigfoot tracks ON HER OWN, and became a believer. People like Daegling do NO field work. BF reseachers putin thousans of hrs at it. and you want 50-50 "balance" ? What a joke. BTW, bf fieldworkers do not believe before they go out. They search for evidence, whatever it may be, or none. An objective, skeptical search. Often they find nada.

beckjordBeckjord 09:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note re DreamGuy

this is the first time he has ever spoken to me, even indirectly. Except once to threaten me for posting on his talk page. I can't mediate with him, so far, because he will not talk. beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Beckjord's latest edit I have to agree with DreamGuy above. There is no absolute rule against editing your own wiki-bio, it's merely strongly discouraged, but the way Beckjord edited it today made my hair stand on end. This edit is wrong on so many levels.

why?

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord, no, this article is not your blog or userpage, it's not a place for you to argue. Many people disapprove of the subject of an article editing it at all;

Hey, DanielCD , a semifriend, put in derogatory comments, and I wanted to correct them.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, which advises these editors to only propose changes on the talk page, and ask other editors to put them in.

recently, I have.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Jimbo Wales puts it, "It is a social faux pas to write about yourself". While there is no absolute rule against you editing the page, yet if you do, you need to exercise extra care, tact, and neutrality. Your own POV is less, not more, appropriate and welcome in this article than in any other page on Wikipedia!

Nobody knows more about what I do or say than myself. Seeing insulting comments about me

on my own page, is not right.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as for using the article to argue about the editing of Wikipedia articles, to complain about it, to recommend readers to go to your own site instead, all this in the article text,  that's unacceptable. Please don't use the word "Wikipedia" again in an article at all, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference for why.

how would anyone ever know this??? Newbies would never know this rule.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you turn the text you added today (already deleted from the article) into the first person and put it on your userpage. It would be suitable there, not to mention being a lot more polite than the "STAY OUT" paragraph you've got now. ;-) Hope this is of help. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

like the "Stay Out" I got from DreamGuy?

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Interim report on major edit Please see inuse template;

what IS a template? Why should newbies even know?

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as a courtesy, please do not edit until I remove it.

remove what, Bijin? I have been on wiki only three weeks. I know barely nothing.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: No, B isn't know(n) for "defending" the "subjects" of Bigfoot etc; I don't even understand what's that means. I thought of writing "defending their reality", but that would be rather simplistic, in view of B's "interdimensional" suggestions.

outsiders and newbies to Bigfoot topic tend to get lost in the old,old question "Does Bigfoot exist?" -- well of course they do, they spoke to me, I've seen them and have photos. The real issue is "What __is__ Bigfoot?" -- I usually do not bother with people at the first level,

that was settled 29 years ago. I discuss on level 2. beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the structure of the article, which was weird. 3 sentences in the long "Career" section were by any stretch anything to do with B's career; the rest of the section was about his claims and beliefs. I have tried to clean up this disaster area by separating it into "Career" vs "Claims and theories".

well, someone else, maybe DanielCD, wrote it, not me.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To counteract the thinness of the resulting "Career" section, I have merged it with "Education", plus the museum info from the lead section. Please note that the only outside reference to a museum I've fouond yet is negative.

egads, how many clippings do I need to mail to you? Malibu, Los Angeles, San Francisco.

Lots of papers, -- just take my word for it - and CNN, and many visiting tv crews, and stations I do not even remember.

Negative? The press HATES bigfoot and ufos. If the US Gov't does not support it, they back off. beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in, not in order to debunk B's claims, but as an in-progress beginning. Hopefully I, or other editors, will find more positive museum descriptions for balance.

references in Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle, SF Examiner, and lots of

foreign press. - hey, just believe it.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I had to remove one of the 3 original "Career" sentences, namely this one:

His views have even gained him an article in the Associated Press with the headline Bigfoot: is it from outer space? In this case, he suggested that Sasquatch could be "an android from another planet".[1]

The reason is that the footnote link, to www.clydelewis.com, has in its turn only the vaguest reference to the supposed AP coverage, no link, date, etc, and that it calls the AP story a mere consequence of the "outrageousness" of B's claims.

No more outrageous than E=MC2 and Einstein-Rosen Bridge theory in space-time. Or the atom bomb.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the nicest thing www.clydelewis.com says about B's views is that his "theory" is a close plagiarism of an old SF show. ("Is Beckjord out of his mind? It would appear that he is banking on the idea that people forget science fiction or that they don’t watch shows like this in reruns on the Sci-Fi channel.")

this guy is a very ordinary man, unable to think outside the box. Probably a sports writer, who

would have hanged Galileo. These guys make their paycheck by not sticking neck out. New ideas are ALWAYS opposed.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this debunking is going to be used as a source, merely because it contains a rumour about AP coverage, its message should IMO be at least a little reflected in the article text. Why isn't there a note linking to the actual Associated Press article? Or, if that is no longer on the web (why don't we get a date, or at least the year?), to some real evidence that it ever existed? The sentence may be restored when it's properly sourced, not before. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

see photo of Bigfoot Museum, 1997

http://www.beckjord.com/museum.jpg GO SEE!

ALSO - http://www.beckjord.com/ebsuit.jpg (that's me!)

also http://www.beckjord.com/ebhat.jpg ( on a research trip)

and http://www.beckjord.com/ebness.jpg (at Loch Ness)

SEE WHO I AM.

beckjordBeckjord 08:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jeez -- here -- SF Examiner, April 8,1997 - "A Museum where monsters are"

Keay Davidson, Science Writer. "Bigfoot,Loch Ness Monster.UFOs are exhibit subjects" A skeptical article written by a skeptic, who disliked me and the museum.

Also - "A new haunt in North Beach" "at the UFO, Bigfoot & Loch Ness Monster Museum, believe it or don't bother."

By Sam Whiting. Chronicle Staff Writer.

San Francisco Chronicle, close to halloween, 1997. (Oct?)

In it I mention Dr Hawkings, and say we are both heading the same direction (even if I am not famous).

happy?

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Update 1: Knocking off for now, template removed Knocking off for now. Feel free to edit, but please don't remove text of mine for being uncited just yet—I'll be back to fix that soon. Can anybody tell me if "The Bigfoot Investigators & Researchers Organization (BIRO)" mentioned in the Lead has any web presence,

What?!!!!

See BIRO site. http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot !!!!!!!!!!!!

or do google search.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

or any other verifiable claim to existence? If not, I'm going to remove it. It sounds too much like the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) for one thing.

bijin--- no,no,no.

We are NOT the BFRO which is run by a con-man. beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(BFRO is a big, serious, pro-Bigfoot outfit which actually does coordinate research.)

Matt Moneymaker, real name, is non-practicing lawyer (no bar exam) who runs BFRO to make money.he runs trips at $1400 each for three days and two nights, and no tents, no food. 40 researchers recently quit. beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just on general principles, an encyclopedia is for facts. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

A pedia is also for listing theories, LIKE EVOLUTION, and showing current research.

[edit] Update 2: citations needed On second thoughts I removed the negative reference to the UFO museum mentioned above, but I need some sort of citation for all three museums. "Museum" is kind of a fancy term, and according to my sources the San Fransisco one was both unimpressive and notably short-lived; what about the other two? A page about them with photos on Beckjord's site would be good enough in this case, I think, but I need something.

see LA Times -- about 1994. Bigfoot Museum in Venice packs em in.

Do google search on ufo museums, and Bigfoot museums. WHY DO I HAVE TO PROVE This? I was there, inside. I have to dig out old clippings.....under piles of junk.

Do article search in Los Angeles Times, 1993,1994,1995. SF Chronicle 1997.SF Examiner, 1997.

Keyword - Beckjord. Museums. UFOs, Bigfoot. beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not mentioned on the Internet at all, other than as, well, frankly, jokes, the mention of them in the article is going to have to be drastically rephrased, or else removed. So, good web references for BIRO and the museums, please, or they're out. I realize that User:Beckjord is currently blocked, so I'll wait till he can reply here, since he's the most likely person to be able to come up with what's wanted. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

all this stuff about the AP article

I was in hundreds of newspapers. Often in SF Chron, and SF Examiner. Also Bay Guardian newspaper, And LEXIS-NEXUS ought to bring up many others.

I am told there are 19,000 web references to my name. A few are re relatives, however. I counted 2000 just two years ago.

Re TV shows and plagiarism. -- What tv shows? Names? I was discussing these ideas for 20 years. Newsletters, and even to producer of THE XFILES I met in LA. Chris something. TV shows steal from me....eg, recent Bermuda Triangle series. The writers see my websites. Credit? Never.

beckjordBeckjord 09:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Should this page exist? If Erik can have this page, well then I guess every amateur with a web site and interests in odd subject matter should have their own "scientific" bio page in a public Encyclopedia.

I get paid. I am not amateur.

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point IMO, but Erik Beckjord was put up for deletion a few weeks ago, and the result was Keep (shrug.) You can read the deletion discussion here. (Please sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, like this: Beckjord 07:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC).) Bishonen | talk 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [edit] Footnotes I've tried out the brand-spanking-new Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). footnoting style here, since I figure it might be easier for a hypothetical user who is unwilling to read or learn anything to use. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

where were we newbies supposted to see the referenceing system? WHO teaches us?We get the impression that

anyone can edit (but this not really, really true. People just revert you.)

beckjordBeckjord 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erik_Beckjord"

bunchofgrapes

Hey, newbies here are NOT told this is a very complicated system that needs an entire BOOK to learn with. "Wikipedia for dummies". It takes days of solid study to learn how to use it. Who has the time? I mean, RC,Vandalism, blocks, even that ADMINS exist,that you CAN reach Jimbo, what are Bureaucrats, sockpuppets, etc. Who has the time? NPOV, etc,etc,etc. All NOT easy.

and then I reach (term deleted)'s like DreamGuy. Sheesh....

but thanks Bijin, like your tulip.

beckjordBeckjord 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WAFE ?

What is it, and how do people join ? You have contact info. ? Martial Law 09:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

email WAFE

rudy@stealthaccess.net

beckjordBeckjord 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this E-mail on my talk page as well ? Martial Law 10:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe,bishonen,bunchofgrapes

what I ask you to understnd is that 1) this is a speculative topic. It is not an established fact, nor an established science. But there is research that has been productive,even if NOT by PhDs. PhDs, like Dr Thomas Tomasi, SW Missouri State, and Dr Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State, look at the results.

2) despite the bad tabloid rep of hairy humanoids, if they are coming and going via wormholes, this is the most important news science can ever get so far. If you want more respect, then think of missing human beings. )(no hair).Do not be influenced by skeptical newsroom hacks. (Keay Davis, SF Chron., as example)

Now, how do we stop the illegal vandalism by DreamGuy?

beckjordBeckjord 09:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WAFE:

Will you place WAFE on your website ? Martial Law 11:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

sure.

Now, you have had my email 6 times.... OK?

beckjordBeckjord

@@ Line 778: / Line 778: @@
 beckjord[[User:Beckjord|Beckjord]] 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
+:Like I tell you above (under where you asked about it, heading: "Martial Law"), there's unfortunately no way of seeing the hits. YOUR Table of Contents, on this page, is a mess, because when you write bigger headings than other people do, their smaller (=normal) headings are treated as subheadings of yours by the software. This hierarchy shows up in the ToC here. And on all other pages you edit, too. This'll make the fourth time I tell you what to type, so c'mon, please ''focus'' already. Type TWO equals signs before and after the heading text, not ONE equals sign. Type this: ==. Not this: =. Your heading for this section is in edit mode <nowiki>"=This not clear, but will look and try to answer here="</nowiki>. Instead, please type <nowiki>"==This not clear, but will look and try to answer here=="</nowiki>. OK?
+:You're new, and so you deserve help, but you shouldn't mistake me for a friend and supporter. This is my opinion: your article editing is very biased. You keep insulting DreamGuy, who is editing far more neutrally and encyclopedically than you. Stop calling him a vandal, if you want any respect in this place. The ins and outs of wiki editing are complicated and hard to learn, but you seem to be using that fact as an excuse for not trying to learn *anything*: reading a policy page is too much trouble. And, finally, you've attacked a highly respected admin who has been patient with you, [[User:El C]], in a crass and idiotic way. You were blocked for good cause. I understand that you're only here to edit the articles you're specifically interested in, but if you go on like this you'll soon find yourself permanently blocked, and not able to edit them either. Did you read my note on the admins' noticeboard and some of the comments to it? As you can see, people are starting to question why we should keep somebody who behaves like you around at all. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#.22Go_back_daily_and_redo_what_they_undid.22:_revert_war_invite_to_Bigfoot this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User:Beckjord this].
+:Could you please reply to my questions about cites for [[Erik Beckjord]] on [[Talk:Erik Beckjord]], where I asked them, when you're unblocked? This isn't a private conversation, I want other people who take an interest in the article to see it, and maybe have some input. That's what article talk pages are for. But I can tell you right now that, yes, I'd seen the Bigfoot page on your website, and that's not what I meant by a "BIRO web presence". Basically, what that page tells me is "BIRO is Erik Beckjord". Not good enough. The way it's mentioned in [[Erik Beckjord]] makes it sound like a big, serious organisation with, you know, members and stuff. Again, compare the BFRO website. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 =reply to Bishonen (Bijin)=