Talk:Jon-Erik Beckjord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 8, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
Wikipedian The subject of this article, Jon-Erik Beckjord, has edited Wikipedia, both as Beckjord (talk • contribs), and anonymously with various AOL IP addresses.


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.

Nah. They're all boring and dull. Beckjord is wild and interesting. --DanielCD 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Amateur not true

I am a professional. I get paid to do what I do.

beckjordBeckjord 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Erik Beckjord, a known lunatic and trouble-maker among cryptozoology discussion groups on the Internet, has created this page for the purpose of his own self-promotion. I highly doubt Erik Beckjord deserves a page in the Wikipedia in order to advertise his personal beliefs and web sites.


[edit] Trouble making

Science advances by the use of trouble-making, which is to challenge the status quo.

Nothing wrong with that. Most CZ sites are run by no person, and the foruns are dominated by total novices and non-researchers. They deserve all the "trouble-making" they can get.

beckjordBeckjord 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that EB did not create this page. He may have edited it at some point, but I started it (without any links to his sites, btw). I don't agree with anything he says, and I know from firsthand experience that he is a troublemaker, but I think he is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. You don't have to be a saint to be in Wikipedia. Zagalejo 05:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IF this page was kept due to votes in favor of, it was most assuredly due to the votes recieved by EB's alteregos. He uses many screen names and even talks to himself on forum sites.````Road Dog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Road Dog (talk • contribs) .

Road Dog: Read the deletion debate. As one who was there for the whole thing, I can personally attest that that is not the case. --DanielCD 19:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lunatic, and I find you to be an idiot (first user comment). I have had serious interaction with Bigfoot that shows me it is not a zoological being, and this disturbs many amateurs. The first line of defense when your ideas, and intelligence, are challenged, is to call the other party insane. A cheap shot.

Do I cause trouble with uneducated and inexperienced posters? You BET I DO.

Galilleo was a trouble maker. Bravo.

BECKJORDBeckjord 08:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Further, I challenge all you unknown, non-experts, non-researchers to get out from behind your armchairs and computers

Note there are many people on this site who are violently opposed to me, some merely because I criticised their spelling or educational level. They are OUT TO GIT ME!

BeckjordBeckjord 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord, there's nothing specifically Wikipedian about not putting private information up on the net. It's just not tactful for reasons that should be obvious. Someone who disagrees with an edit you make might get angry at you, and instead of just sending nasty messages and vandalizing your user page, might use that info to track you down.
Then they might come to your house and stuff bananas up the tailpipe of your car or strangle your lawn flamingos or commit other rotten deeds I leave to your imagination. --DanielCD 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I removed the controversy section. This section is a lot of unverified statements, many quite POV, and all of which are unreferenced. Please provide references for the claims if you readd it (I think the last version needs a complete re-write anyway). --DanielCD 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel

You are the first admin who has talked to me, going beyond sending links. I am not afraid of ANYONE tracking me down. Last one who tried wound up in CLUB FED (seriously) because I got him arrested. On the other hand, many good people have met me and we have interacted favorably face to face.

I ask again, Daniel, how can I get my edits about me on the Erik Beckjord page to stick? Please walk me thru this. Whatever I say is instantly deleted.

beckjordBeckjord 08:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beckjord to critics and supporters

Thank you Danielc for the new page. I have some comments that apply. Perhaps you will be so kind as to take some of them and add them in to the page, since non-admins cannot make anything "stick".

A message to admins, sysops, and users on Wikipedia from Jon-Erik, a real person.:

re the issues here, I am a sysop, and an admin on my own email list. Many newbies just do not understand that some sites, like ufomind.com are built only to insult and defame researchers in related fields. If you are singled out for lies and defamation by Glenn Campbell of UFOMIND, it is an honor. It does not mean what he says is in any way true. Glenn Campbell is just one guy... and has never met me, nor most of the people he defames. He provides no positive purpose. Yet, newbies will believe anything they read, uncritically. People __tell lies__ on the Internet. Often, on purpose. And usually it by someone with no name, no address and no contact phone or even email. Yet, newbies, such as here, will BELIEVE them, because they cannot comprehend pure evil. So ufomind trashes Beckjord, (and 15 others). So what? You buy it? Five researchers have sued Glenn Campbell, and more will. He exists only to lie. Trust no one on the Internet.

Then, malicious emails -- I only send those to liars, hoaxers and thieves. So what? Flames -- I send those to flamers. So what? Exposing hoaxers in the field of CZ or any field, is good.

Folks - fighting back is not bad. And in CZ, Nessie, UFOs and Bigfoot, there are many violent and difficult people you do not find in stamp collecting. Being "controversial" -- so what? It is controversy that advances science.

Theatening to sue someone who deserves it ... so what? That is what the courts are for, justice. Someone runs his car thru your nice yard - sue them. Someone defames you -- sue them. Someone steals your car - sue them. Why not?

Others have deleted my edits daily, even urls, because some here have had contact with me on the Net before, and have resentments over what I have done in the field.Many here come from cryptozoology.com and hold limited and conservative views, based on non-research. I see that only admins can really,really post and get their posts saved for good. And all over WP, new people get their posts deleted and then are insulted to boot, by arrogant admins. Now wonder you have TROLLS and VANDALS ? Now you know. So, I ask honest ADMINS to insert these edits for my own name page (not the personal page) because after all, who knows the truth better? And more edits for the Bigfoot=, Nessie and CZ pages,because hardly anyone here is experienced at those topics... getting their info from TV...and this is the way, for only admins and sysops can really,really,really make edits stick (what you are not told in the FAQ). This the real action is here, in the discussion pages.

Note re Google search: I have maybe 1400 items on various search engines. 5% are sites that dislike me, but usually with no evidence of wrong doing or proof. Clinton, the UN, or God have far far more derogatory sites. If you live and breathe, someone will resent you and go on the net about it.

Re comments I read here about how I threaten to sue people, well, as mentioned above, this is not evil, if the persons have done wrong or damaging things. This is nothing ethically, legally nor morally wrong for suing someone for libel anbd defamation of character. Many younger people think this is a mean or wrong thing. What they do not understand is that sometimes it is <<justified<<. The Cryptozoology internet is full of jealous defamers,,,and worse... tires getting slashed on camping trips, gunshots into camp, tent ropes cut, etc.

It is a rotten and competitive world in CZ. So I, and others, fight back. This is not wrong, it is self-defence.

I look forward to working with people of good will here on Wikipedia. If you have questions,

Oh- please add, to the page, since I cannot, that I was on Leno, Letterman,CBS News, NBC News, BBC, UK ITV, and hundreds of local tv stations, promoting Cryptozoology. This is good.

Now, what have I done worth remembering?

please forward (add edit) these reasons why I am worth a page.

1) Had the very first Bigfoot blood analyzed by Dr Vincent Sarich, UC BERKELEY in mid 70's, (Frontiers of Science Mag., may 1980) and had associated hairs checked by three PhDs re four locations, all similar and all higher unkown primate. Seattle Times, Mar 1977.

2) in 1983, filmed the Loch Ness Monster in 16mm and had it shown on BBC and NBC in 1987.

BBC, ITV, NBC Sept 1987. see it - http://www.beckjord.com/nessie

3) Took unseen photos of Bigfoot or aliens, 1978,1979,1980,1981

see them at http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoottribephotos

4) Opened and ran three Cryptozoology Museums in LA, Malibu and then San Fran. CNN TV 1997.

5) by appearing on GOOD MORNING AMERICA, LENO, LETTERMAN AND dozens of tv programs, did much to promote crytptozoology to the public.

and much more, http://www.beckjord.com/whoisbeckjord

Please submit this for me to the deletion (or not) committee.

Thanks,

BeckjordBeckjord 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will see what I can do Beckjord. I appreciate the effort you are making. It might take a little while though. --DanielCD 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CORRECTION - ANDROIDS FROM OTHER PLANET

Think CSICOP misquoted me.Sheaffer. They are skeptics. I said that Bigfoot *could* be an alien, maybe from another planet, maybe from another dimension, maybe from space-time. It also *might* be an android made of metal and plastic, maybe -- think of film BLADE RUNNER. Who is to say andoids may not be working for IBM, right now? Or GM, Texaco,etc. How would we tell or know?

In any case, I never stated these theories were actual fact.

Please correct page. THANKS

BecKjord205.208.227.49 20:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC) BECKJORD205.208.227.49 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misquotes and false items

Much of my problem is with critics who deliberately mangle my quotes and create false statments, which then newbies take as gospel truth. Trust no one on the net. beckjord205.208.227.49 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citation #3

Hey, recheck the citation #3. In the revising I think it got misplaced. It's not in the "Looking for Mr. Goodape" article. Did that ref get dropped somewhere along the line? --DanielCD 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

His Bigfoot theories 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. Robert Sheaffer. "Looking for Mr. Goodape". Skeptical Inquirer, Nov. 1999 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_23/ai_57533282

The link is wrong, and I couldn't find anything from AP on it, so I took it out for now.--Cuchullain 21:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the link where I found the AP article referred to: http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/sasquatch/sasquatch.html --DanielCD 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I slipped it all back in and I think they are correct now. It would really be nice to find that AP article. --DanielCD 22:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I must have left something out. Disregard my last few edits -- I thought that one of the citations was still out of place, but you had it right to begin with. Zagalejo 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afd result - keep

Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to all for positive vote to keep

Bravos and thanks to all.

Beckjord205.208.227.49 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request add my overall speculative theory on odd creatures

admins please note:

This would be "Beckjord's Practical Theory on Wormholes" which states that "All weird creatures, ghosts, spirits, hairy hominoids, lake monsters, Big Bird, phantom kangaroos, the Dover Demon, the giant Kangamoto bat, Black Panthers, out of place cougars, Large Black Dogs in the UK, and shapeshifters of all kinds, come to and from this Universe/dimension via wormholes, from other parallel universes/dimensions, and different beings may come from different parallel universes/dimensions. The term other dimensions, beyond the four we know, is the same as parallel universes. In the great majority pf the cases for these interdimensionsal beings, their physicality is brief, if at all, and no harm is done to humans, other than mental upset, and fear. Wormholes then, are not just far away situations from other universes to other ones, but also link to our particular universe. Unidentified aerial craft may also come here via wormholes, along with aliens of different descriptions, each coming from different parallel universes/dimensions, and each with different agendas and goals. Some to interbreed, some to enslave, some to just look. So-called shapeshifters may simply be rapid back and forth movers from one other dimension to this one, in nano-seconds, withneachnshift being different. In other cases, the beings may bring with them abilities they had in the dimension they came from, such as extreme weight in tons, shapeshifting, ability to paralyze witnesses, shoot out scents, carry multiple beings in/on/embedded with one body, plus telepathy and mind reading.

One major means of demonstrating this ability to fade out, perhaps into a wormhole, is by videos made Walla Walla researcher Brian Smith, showing large hairy humanoid tracks that vanish, as well as suddenly start, in snow, with no good mundane reason. There are also other cases found by this authour, in person, in the field, and reports by Shelly Binkley of Oregon, and other witnesses in the book, The Locals by Thom Powell, and in the book, The Bigfoot Files, by Peter Guttilla. For more information, visit http://www.bigfoot.org, and http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse ."

beckjord205.208.227.49 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "etherial beings

This is not my view. Etheric is a wrong term. But the right term is admittedly hard to find. I feel they can be physically real on an occasional or brief basis but that, like the famed CHESHIRE CAT, they can fade out as they go, through a wormhole, [or] to another dimension/prallel universe. See http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse

also please add this wiki reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormholes

In general, I do advocate that wormholes, theoretical passageway between parallel universes. do exist and that they can touch this universe and this earth. Wormholes are discussed by Dr Michio Kaku of CUNY physics dept. Parallel universes are written about by Dr Fred Allen Wolf.

I ask why one must assume wormholes are always somewhere else. They could be also here. Each time a person imagines a "what if" world, it may come into being, and wormholes connect them to us. Thus a billion-trillion-trillion sets of dimensions may exist, all interlaced with connecting wormholes. And stange creatures, stange to us, can come through them.

beckjordBeckjord 07:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Late Show picture

Just wondering... The Late Show with David Letterman didn't debut until 1993. Either the picture is from one of Letterman's older shows, or the date in the caption is wrong. I think. Zagalejo 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. OK, I'll remove the date. --DanielCD 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot that he has hosted more than one show. Zagalejo 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letterman

It is true that I appeared on the Letterman Show prior to the official title, and this makes is prior then to 1981, probably between 1977-1981.

I'll look at my video copy and see what it was officially called and notify you.

But Letterman was definitely in charge and it was his show, and it was nation-wide.

As I recall, they did a rerun later so it was seen twice. Maybe it was Late Night with David Letterman. You can call it "an earlier version of the Letterman Show." To me, it is all David Letterman. FWIW, he tried to put me down as he does to ufo people, but I appealed to the audience, joked back at him, and people in the audience stood up and said they had seen Bigfoot! Letterman choked. (Maybe it was the Bigfoot poop I had in a baggie.)On the sidewalk as I got into the show's stretch limo, a lady ran up and gave me her sighting report.

So, the simple solution is: Who knows the name of the Letterman Show before he took over from Johnny Carson? All rush forward..... :-)

beckjordBeckjord 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Either Late Night with David Letterman or The David Letterman Show. Zagalejo 23:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New stuff

I think much the new material added by Tomlillis is stacking the deck, and it doesn't really add to the article. You could write pages of this material. I think the picture is clear enough without it.

In addition, since 2001 the FBI has been wasting their time monitoring a lot of people for ridiculous reasons. No reason to assume they couldn't be watching him or to imply his claim is a just a luny raving. If you disagree, let's discuss, but I removed some of it for now. --DanielCD 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the veracity of the claim; I'm merely stating that the claim was made. It's pretty significant when someone claims that the United States government is watching him or her because they are afraid of what he or she is doing. I don't consider it stacking the deck--if you want to balance it with citations of people who believe those claims or by including evidence for or against it, I'd certainly not deny you the opportunity.

As to the discussion of the way he addresses criticism, I don't think putting it the way I did is unfair. Ample documentation of such statements exists. It's one thing to say that he's an internet "troll," but that's not the whole story. The fact that his "trolling" behavior is motivated by a belief that he is being systematically oppressed, whether that is true or not, makes that behavior a hell of a lot clearer.

Going to abstain from editing until we can discuss this further. Cheers. Tom Lillis 02:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article: Bigfoot..

Status of Bigfoot Article: Protected from further edits. Reason: Dispute in Progress. Recomendation: Settle Dispute on Talk Page. Note: Failure to do so will keep other people from editing this article, resulting in that not even YOU will no longer be permitted to edit it as well.Martial Law 00:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what's this note doing on this page? Bishonen | talk 17:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[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. 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; please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, which advises these editors to only propose changes on the talk page, and ask other editors to put them in. 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! 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, <time out for deep breaths> that's unacceptable. Please don't use the word "Wikipedia" again in an article at all, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference for why. 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).

[edit] Interim report on major edit

Please see inuse template; as a courtesy, please do not edit until I remove it.

Lead: No, B isn't know 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.

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". 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. 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.

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. 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.") 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)

[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, 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. (BFRO is a big, serious, pro-Bigfoot outfit which actually does coordinate research.) Also, just on general principles, an encyclopedia is for facts. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

[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. 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)

[edit] bishonen

I added somewhere the website you asked for.

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/museum.html

beckjordBeckjord 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] web references added

See in article under museums.Check out the photo.

Thanks, Bishojo. (Bishonen)

beckjordBeckjord 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[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.

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: ~~~~.) Bishonen | talk 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

I've tried out the brand-spanking-new <ref></ref> 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)

I know, the italics are bad. I'll go beg the developer to hurry up and fix that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I "fixed" it myself by messing with some MediaWiki: messages. The servers should start self-destructing any minute now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe theorist

This is not correct .. my views are shared by many others in this field, and it is the newbies and novices who hold to old outdated ideas. Recently,author Chris Murphy has switched over to my ideas, after 20 years of opposition. What was fringe in 1606 became mainstream in 1650.Galileo. The author of this article holds to the old idea that only popular ideas are valid.

beckjordBeckjord 07:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Wormhole-surfing Bigfoots is a fringe theory. There's simply no other way to describe something that outrageous.

[edit] outrageous

Sorry, but the mainstream ideas have totally failed. The fringe is all that is left that might work.

      Jason

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  1. You might be just a little biased. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing articles about yourself. You really shouldn't be editing this article at all. android79 07:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits

My edits here are very,very conservative and are meant to correct false quotes and false information about myself. I am grateful to see this article. Have a good Minnesota Twins day, Android.

beckjordBeckjord 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For the record, Wikipedia should not reference itself. If you want to link to another Wikipedia article, an internal link (with [[article name goes here]]) will suffice. ("Minnesota Twins" day?) android79 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Bigfoot page

I've now studied the NPOV and NOR info, and with a few grammatical changes, I can now legally add stuff that was chopped out before by pedants.

beckjordBeckjord 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/n/Talk%7EJon-Erik_Beckjord_6451.html"