User talk:DanielCD/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

pls unblock me and unprotect my userpage

you are an admin, you can see my contribuitions on "user contributions". User:Haham hanuka

Yes, I'm an admin, but I cannot arbitrarily unblock you. You have to work it out with the admin who did. I'm sorry I can't help you more. --DanielCD 15:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

The statement was placed on WP:AN/I — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-7 15:25

Thanks for that response. There are so many forums It's getting hard to find info quickly. --DanielCD 15:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Unblock me and I'll remove the "word list" you consider as a spam User:Haham hanuka
Once again, you'll have to work it out with Brian0918. His attention has been called to it, and there's nothing more I can do for you. --DanielCD 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Daniel: Thank you for the barnstar. Most kind. I also lost steam on the project a bit myself. Overtired and overextended. Am hoping to come back to it with renewed vigor soon, perhaps after the first of the year. I would like to see the project completed. Let me know if you need further help and how best to accomplish that (esp. regarding the place names)--FeanorStar7 16:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring me

I'm a little bit of a newbie at this and occasionally I get carried away with categories. I'm going through and cleaning up all of the pleistocene/prehistoric entries I made. I am leaving a pleistocene and a prehistoric version of each since some readers may not be aware of which epoch an animal is in. Although that was my point with this catagorization project. I think Cenozoic species are largely ignored with the looming Dinosaurs and Cambrian explosion life-forms. So I've set about trying to bring them all together in wikipedia. --aremisasling 19:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord

+++++++++++++++++++++Beckjord

Daniel - why can't I just email you?\

What is this THING here that emails are a no-no?

I see some statements that so and so in admin is going to revert an article BACK to its original state/ How is this done, and how do I get to make my imput not deleteable?

I see non-experts editing exp[erts here and this is not good. The basic concept of wikipedia is flawed. How can anyone take you seriously if any idiot can edit a page made by an expert?

beckjordBeckjord 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

QUESTION FOR DANIEL:

I have no idea how to message you. How is this done? Also, Jon-Jon (something) had sent me a message saying I was a vandal...that nhe is on the anti vandal committee.

How do I message HIM? I can't be a vandal since I know more about this topic of 1) me, and 2) Bigfoot, than anyone here. So I assume admins can make things permanent if they like the text?

beckjordBeckjord 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user page

"Popular"? Meh... I've seen busier. :-) I just noticed the error and thought I'd fix it. I've seen you around before and just thought I'd read up on ya. Don't worry about the minor fixes... it's the major ones that'll cost you. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

About your question...

I don't know that the individual is a troll, but according to his article, it would appear a number of others think so. My main interaction with him was at the bigfoot page, when he kept adding nonsense over and over again. It might just be because he's new here, but it seems all he wants to contribute are his personal claims to greatness and his bizarre theories about bigfoot. And, if you'll look at my edit to his page, one of the things I took out was a line claiming he'd announced his intentions to "trash wikipedia" (I didn't want to give him extra attention if it's true). [1] It's up to you, but I wouldn't put to much effort into him. The Tar Baby comparison is probably apt.--Cuchullain 23:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the deletion vote. I agree with you on keeping it, by the way.--Cuchullain 22:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I think the Erik Beckjord rewrite looks good. I'm sorry if the page created a lot of extra work for you. I probably should have anticipated Beckjord would edit his page eventually, but I guess I wasn't thinking. Zagalejo 18:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No apology needed buddy; you did a fine job. The extra work was my choice. --DanielCD 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment by the way. Makes me feel good. -- Dystopos 14:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I saw that on your talk page after I left the above, but I didn't know what else to say. Dystopos 16:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord

Daniel, why be sorry you got involved? There is no right time for fairness.

In time, considering the practical applications of wormholes and interdimensional theory, this issue will be a major top bigtime item. PhDs make theoreis and I show how they are happening, here. Do not wish to be rude, but this here is more important than most of what anyone does.

Remember, Galilleo was a nut. Columbus also. Wright Bros. Even Einstein.

"Great spirits are often viciously attacked by mediocre minds."

and he should know...

Beckjord205.208.227.49 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not that sorry. Ya know, seeing this comment above... you can be somewhat elegant when you want to. --DanielCD 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

dan and verifiability

Much of my work is too new to be published, and most journals refuse to publish anything on Bigfoot. This is not a chemistry experiment. The source to verify is my website, beckjord.org and sometimes the Bigfoot Coop Newsletter, which is NOT ONLINE.

Now maybe you can quoTe frOM A WORK IN PROGRESS. " SEX AND HOW TO USE IT TO ATTRACT BIGFOOT AND A RECORD OF PERSONAL BIGFOOT RESEARCH 1975-2005." Jon-Erik Beckjord.

This is all very frustrating, since most of the quotes I see are from out of date books that are all wrong. Bigfoot research is not an established science. There is no central authority, unless it is our group, the BIRO. No university sponors such work. References to old and erroneous books is worthless.

Now get this: is is COMMON PROCEDURE in science to quote in footnotes : Personal correspondence "letter to John Green, 3/10/89 ". I see this often in scientific journals. I ask you to address this issue. This is a legit reference. I want to use it. I ask it be made OK to use.

If I have to, I can send you xeroxes (oh, you need to be secret, right?) of such references. OK, here is one:

Journal of Scientific Exploration,vol 17, no 3, page 494, in an article on Missing Science of Ball Lightning, the author , D.J. Turner, lists in his references: Emsley, J. (1993) Personal Communication

this is a letter from Emsley to Turner. This is considered totally legit.

Now, what about webpagfes made by the person writing or researching?

Example: http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse - page one.

Hey? Work for you? beckjordBeckjord 21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How does one directly get to your page? What do I type in the search box? Danielcd gets me nothing. - beckjordBeckjord 21:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

bigfoot skull

Nobody has a Bigfoot skull. This one is a model of a possible head of Bigfoot.

Thanks,however.

beckjordBeckjord 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

re edit procedure

Now, if I make an edit and I list (where?) the reference, either in the text or in the discuss page, WHAT IS TO STOP SOMEONE WHO HATES ME FROM JUST REVERTING ANYWAY?

And I do have enemies. What if they disagree with me? Can they still delete my edits? Do they even have to look at the reference?

I get the impression that if someone does not like the edit, they can just - bam - revert or delete anyway, with no qualifications nor knowledge of the subject. And this is what makes me suspicious of Wiki as a reference. Some people BRAG they can make a revert in two seconds. This is a serious question and a serious problem. Please reply.

beckjordBeckjord 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

name is Beckjord, please correct. The object is a model of a possible head (not skull) of Bigfoot. Yes, I can click on a link,to reach you, or anyone, but sometimes is hard to find a link. Any better way?

beckjordBeckjord 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Request third opinion

In last two weeks, I edited the BIGFOOT page three times, to change description from ape-like to human-like. All were reverted. By people I will bet have no field work experience.

Please look up the HISTORY of that page, and check the reverts. Aside from my references, I 've seen Bigfoot five times and it does not look like an ape, and walks on two feet.Apes walk on four.

BeckjordBeckjord 06:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

DanielCD

Daniel please read

re this material:

1. Bigfoot may be a interdimensional traveller. http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse 2. Bigfoot may be a alien. http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot 3. Bigfoot may be a animal native to Earth. 4. Bigfoot doesn't exist. 5. Bigfoot may be a physical manifestation of an "out-of-body-experience" Bigfoot Coop Newsletter, Nov. 1995, also BFNA@yahoogroups.com list, also personal communication to author John Green,11/1996. Beckjord, you are going to have to find a way to make this into a paragraph and integrate it into the article better. The refs have to go in the ref section.

I haven't had a lot of time to look at it, and I really don't know anything about bigfoot. I'll try to figure out an acceptable way to present this info, if it is indeed relevant. --DanielCD 20:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I hope this does not sound arrogant, and I do note you do spend some time editing the Bigfoot page, perhaps from boredom? But I need, and hope to recruit an admin who can FREEZE the page, or put hold on it, and then act as moderator for edits. Right now any bozo with a beer in one hand and a hot dog in the other can edit and revert and edit and revert, when he knows nothing about the topic except what he saw on tv. ("Bigfoot could be a ham sandwich", etc). I put in links and find some idiot has deleted them or reverted. This is my basic, deep, complaint about the Wiki concept. Idiots can edit the work of relative experts. I ask you to HOLD THE PAGE., and also create a paragraph that is acceptable. I've spent 30 years on this work, and it would be great to get some wiki help. Please reply.

If you can, then, I, and others can submit items to you for approval.

Otherwise it is just an edit war, and I probably will give up and go away.

"Mr Ham Sandwich" has no right to edit a singe word. I am disgusted.

Then we have small eyes and small head for Bigfoot which is sheer cr*p. And LOTS more.

WILL YOU REPLY?

BeckjordBeckjord 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord to DanielCD

Will you ask DreamGuy to keep his stupid, uninformed, skeptical hands off the Bigfoot page? He keeps replacing total garbage I have edited out.

Also, someone keeps editing back the false description, small eyes, small head and so on.

beckjordBeckjord 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrtion or court

I seek some hearing to force this idiot DreamGuy to stop his nonsense edits. Where do I go?

beckjordBeckjord 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


email from Vila Wolf

From: Vila Wolf <vilawolf@gmail.com> To: "rudy@stealthaccess.net" <rudy@stealthaccess.net> Subject: Re: If you want to undo damage you did on Wickipedia

Here's a question to you, ya great old smurf.... Prove that Bigfoot is inherently a paranormal being. Prove that everyone else is wrong. It's a simple as that. Prove to me that bigfoot is a paranormal being and I will stop poking holes in your ego.

You cannot because you are not wanting to prove anything. What you want to do is build your own reputation by tearing down others. Your delusions of persecution and grandeur are nothing but your own inflated ego. You have nothing in your pathetic little life so your leach off of others. You were probably the geekie kid who was hanging around the jocks in school believing that voting for the popular kids made you popular as well.

You flaunt two or three minor appearances while others do not bother to mention the fact that they have made in upwards of twenty and are even asked back. This groupie pattern of behavior extends to your "work" as well. Why do you only bother with the high profile news, crafting and reshaping your self to fit and work into the situation? Because you want the reflected glory nothing more.

Vila Wolf

.:: One Drunk Cowgirl ::.

Hmmm.... I was on Good Morning America twice, and Letterman ran my bit twice. I was on various shows because of new info. Now Coast to Coast, for example, runs a known thief over and over, (not named due to Wiki police watching) and ran Biscardi many times despite protests by others, all for RATINGS.

I was a geek in HS and hung out with the slide-rule bunch. We did not give a da*n about the neanderthal jocks. Most of them never made the pros or college teams. We all went on to college. Most of the jocks did not.

beckjordBeckjord 09:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny how you'll reply to others but you only sent me an itty bitty virus you great ol Smurf. As a Moonshiner, it's become a running joke that I am knee deep in corn-liquor. VilaWolf

Request for RfC Comment

Having been a past participant in the User:Braaad / User:68.112.201.90 "incident", I was hoping you could take a second and add any input you might have to an RfC I've written at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Braaad. Thanks. McNeight 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Erik Beckjord

Left a note on the talk page.

I just want to expand a bit, though, while I'm in the neighborhood:

Mr. Beckjord is now a part of the 'pedia and it seems like he has decided to add his expert opinion to topics such as Bigfoot and Cryptozoology. Unfortunately, he wields that expertise like a nail-studded 2x4: "I know more than you. How dare you challenge me? You are simple of mind!" If there's hyperbole in that summary, it's small.

If I properly understand his intentions, we have now entered the realm of allowing original research by proxy. Even more frightening: it's original research that is difficult to document and nigh-impossible to properly peer-review. If that's going to be the case, then it's only fair to give a full account of the behavior of the researcher.

He is here to present himself as a scientist and wishes for others to present him as such. But let's be realistic: he's not included in Wikipedia for his notability in the scientific world. He's here because he's a very vocal conpiracy and paranormal fringe theorist. I believe in NPOV, but it certain circumstances, a little bit of "balance" has to be brought into play, too.

(Then again, I might just be a "mediocre mind" spewing nonsense. Heh-heh.)

That's my piece. You've done an excellent job salvaging the entire bizarre situation--the mark of a great administrator. For what it's worth, I'm impressed above and beyond and despite my dislike of the subject matter. Cheers. Tom Lillis 02:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

reply to Tom

No, your mind is not average. Now, this field of cz and bigfoot HAS NO PEERS. It is not established science. Very few field workers do much, if anything of value. It is like how do you edit the very first spaceman to set foot on Mars and returns, if this happens? He has no peers. Further, most field workers are not educated, and many are just plain nuts, or incompetent. Also, editors of mainstream journals will not publish ANTHING THAT MENTIONS THE P-WORD. Most will not publish anything about hairy humanoids at all. This we have some fringe newsletters, and lots of websites.

So, Tom what are we to do? Keep data that is old, erroneous and passe' ? How do we enter new info from the very few who do any serious work, like a guy who runs a kids party bounce machine and an airline pilot? Remember, there is NO funding for zoologists to go after Bigfoot. So none go out.

I'm one of the very few who took any zoology courses or anthro courses in college. And, (forgive me) fwiw, I am in Mensa and am very observant. ( I am sure you can join anytime).

So, how do we get beyond this references and peer review jazz when there are none, except reports I filed with various newsletter editors, Pursuit Magazine, Frontiers of Science Magazine and articles about my work in the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer?

What can be done? The current Bigfoot page has many errors and false assumptions. Will YOU work with me? Danielcd? Others?

BTW, I am not a scientist, but I do report to Dr Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State, and to Dr Thomas Tomasi, Missouri SW Univ. with my results. In effect, I am their proxy.

My behavior is influenced by hundreds of personal attacks on me (even in wiki) because of my findings made by amateurs, and sometimes I get a bit kranky over it. Many who have a limited world-view just cannot accept anything that might change it. So they attack me. Just as Galileo was attacked, and what I am finding (see http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse) is very seminal, important, and ground-breaking even if I have to say it myself. In time, othrs will say it, not just me. What many do not understand is that this is not just chasing some silly ape stories in the woods. We actually have wormholes (see wiki page) being USED, HERE. And I have what may be proof of it. If true, this is STUPENDOUS. Come be part of it.

best regards,

beckjordBeckjord 00:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you this barnstar for your commendable handling of Erik Beckjord in both article and user forums. -Cuchullain
I award you this barnstar for your commendable handling of Erik Beckjord in both article and user forums. -Cuchullain

I thought you deserved a barnstar for the time and effort you have put into dealing with our friend in such a professional and respectful way.--Cuchullain 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

re: wikipedia not a suicide pact

You're right. I was out of line, sorry. I struckthrough my last comment. Thank you for constructive criticism. Herostratus 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL I dont know how you spell it, but not like that. Herostratus
Are you calling me a po-ta-to? But, sure, I see what you mean. Wikipedia is an amazing thing, isn't it? Just from the community point of view. It really does seem to be a positive community -- maybe because we are working together on something and not just hanging around.Herostratus 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for Daniel

I request a Wiki mentor. Such as you. Someone who can show the secret ropes and what works and why and what to avoid. Such as someone who can spell it out. Answer questions, which nobody else seems to do.

  • Q: if any edit is made, are all who previously made edits notified?
  • Q: is there any way to make a master edit to a page and make it "stick" ?
  • Q: can anyone, at any time, for any reason, cause a revert?
  • Q: can you revert from that revert, back to your own version?
  • Q: if you make an edit, with evidence, can the next dude revert anyway?
  • Q: how do you do a revert?
  • Q: Is there a master OMBUDSMAN who can reverse unfair blocking?
  • Q: how can you require a blocking admin to justify his block? Where?
  • Q: how can I edit the Bigfoot page and not be called a vandal?
  • Q: re evidence:if someone in a book states something wrongly, in the book, is that still "evidence"? This is particularly true in Bigfoot and CZ, where many non-researchers write books, with no expertise to do so. Is correcting such wrong things in such wrongful books, (people out of the loop, passe', behind the times) then considered "vandalism"? Are books gospel here?

beckjord205.208.227.49 19:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My response is on his talk page. --DanielCD 01:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Update: the response has been removed somewhere, and I haven't found out where as of yet. --DanielCD 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vw's Smurf Comments

Hmmm I was unaware that Quoting the man's own comments was considered defaming. But if you say so I guess I'll have to behave, lol. Vilawolf

.. PS Congrats on your award

You're right, perhaps badmouthing is a better word. Anyway, my point is that attacking him and/or silly ideas is not going to help in the matter of keeping or deleting the article, and isn't really relevant to the discussion. --DanielCD 14:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
In reply to My Talk page: LMAO Beckjord is as much an underdog as Cujo. Since I started posting here, he's sent me 6 viruses and is trashing me at every opportunity, and all I did was quote him. You should see some of the stuff he does to people he really doesn't like .... VilaWolf
I was solely referring to his activities on Wikipedia, which is all I know of him. --DanielCD 06:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Something I never expected to say

DanielCD I seriously think you have dis-disillusioned me with Wikipedia today.

Honorable, impartial, people are rare and precious, you don't know how lucky you are to be able to find one whenever you like by just looking in the mirror. --82.195.137.125 23:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Request of Expert Wikiguy Dan

How can I post a PHOTO on my name page site? THE ONE THAT IS BEING DECIDED ON. Or can you post the photo for me?

http://www.beckjord.com/letter.jpg

beckjordBeckjord 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Letterman show gave me the photo. Public domain. No copyright. 1981.

beckjordBeckjord 21:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened??

Who cut-pasted the long-established United States with more than 7000 articles into United States of America and then deleted the former title page?? Georgia guy 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Would Really Appreciate Input

Or even just check that I haven't done anything I shouldn't on last edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

My intention is:

  • To make the case that all other relevant articles use DSM IV criteria verbatum, which should be a precedent on copyright one way or the other.
  • That the previous transcription of these criteria interpreted them to the point of significant distortion.
  • To make a temporary compromise while copyright issue is sorted out by transcribing their meaning myself as close as possible to the original, I would appreciate any input into making them even closer to original --82.195.137.125 15:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

talk page revert

Hi DanielCD -- I am wondering why you reverted my archiving of the talk page? Did I do something against policy? Please let me know -- Sdedeo (tips) 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I was a little trigger happy. --DanielCD 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord to Danielcd

1) on Beckjord page, I never spoke to Bigfoot, but I believe one spoke to me, using telepthy. No overt words were verbalized.

2) On Bigfoot page - bigfoot never had small eyes. ALL witnesses report large eyes. One source is John Green, "Sasquatch, the Apes Among Us" ( a bad title...)

please adjust, thanks.,\

beckjordBeckjord 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

Found a Bigfoot witness who also believes these things are interdimensional. He appears to be a Native American and he does NOT want his sighting investigated.Martial Law 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: This Wikipedian is having his incident investigated.Martial Law 07:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy Removing Material:

User:Dreamguy has repeatedly removed material concerning where people should go if they want to report their encounters with Bigfoot, stating ""its nonsense" in the Edit summary. Told who really placed this section, still he removed it. Told him just now that removal of it is considered vandalisim. Martial Law 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Should I notify the CVU about this matter ?Martial Law 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

MY complaint is that User:Dreamguy had removed a entire section, which was this:"Reporting a Encounter with Bigfoot", which states that people who has had these encounters should go to a reputable Bigfoot website, data site to report these things. Already have one Wikipedian who has done so(He spotted one on the way to his work site.) User:Dreamguy implied it is nonsense. This is MY one and only complaint with this guy. How can something like that be nonsense ? I know THAT is vandalisim.Martial Law 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I am not tailoring the article for anyone, just stating that a whole section was vandalised, no more, no less.Martial Law 22:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Am trying to resolve dispute w/ User:Dreamguy on article section removal. User:Beckjord will have to deal with the other issues with User:Dreamguy, as persuant to protocol, since the nature of the disputes are seperate issues.Martial Law 22:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance.Martial Law 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A reputable site is one that is NOT fraudulent, nor pushing hidden agendas in one way or another.Martial Law 03:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Accidents

Hey, these things happen.Martial Law 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

ALERT : REVERT WAR.... ALERT - Trying to PREVENT one

Soon there will be another war, this time it is the UFO article. A User: Krazikarl says he believes the UFO article favors "the ET people" and that he will soon(See his Talk page) re-write the UFO article to be "acceptable to the 'skeptics'". So far, nothing is going on. IF this guy does this, other Users will go to war against this User, which will logically happen.

I will, on the other hand, will stay out of this war, except to monitor it, get called in to mediate it. when it comes. Can you protect it from the expected war ? Seen what happened on the Bigfoot article. Martial Law 07:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Also go to: UFO, then go to "talk:Unidentified Flying Object", then Re.:"Serious NPOV problem", at the bottom on this, see " --Krazikarl" in a red link. Go to his Talk page, then read it. I explained to him about how the Robertson Panel article could be fueling his suspicions. How can I tell him that a major re-write of the article to favor skeptics can set off a edit war, worse ? Thus the request to protect the UFO page. Martial Law 08:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Cheers. Martial Law 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you also protect the Roswell UFO Incident article. Another User has stated to re-write it to favor the "skeptics", and the other side will go to war to stop that as well. Martial Law 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to prevent a edit war. A user Krazikarl says he will re-write the article to favor the skeptical view. See his Talk page, especially what is written like this. The "pro guys" who see THAT will be ticked off, thus there is your edit war. This is not a accusation either. Just trying to prevent a edit war from happening. Look what happened when User Beckjord and User Dreamguy got into one. Also am trying to prevent one from happening on the Roswell UFO Incident as well. Another User says he'll "remodel" the Roswell UFO Incident article, and I know that will create a Edit war as well. This is no accusation either, just trying to prevent another edit war.Martial Law 03:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT accusing anyone of anything just trying to stop a war from happening.

The User who said that he wanted to redesign the Roswell UFO Incident is a User:Bubba73 talk

Again, all I'm doing is attempting to prevent a edit war, NOT ACCUSE anyone of anything.Martial Law 05:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NO ! You did NOT accuse anyone of anything either. This may come up in a edit war. Cheers. Martial Law 06:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC) :)

Besides, I need a good Admin. You interested ? Martial Law 06:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC) :)

My Apologies

I am NOT angered @ you, just preparing for the worst case scenario. IF you think that I offended you, I do humbly apologise. Martial Law 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC) :)

When you have to handle a dispute, do you not prepare for the worst case scenario ? Martial Law 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Your help

I'll be doing some watching of my own now that it's been drawn to my attention, but we'll have to keep an eye on user:beckjord on the unidentified flying object page. He is clearly incapable of NPOV, and someone will need to keep an eye on him. I'll do my best, hope you'll help. Duke nemmerle 19:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Hey, I just reverted some anon who vandalized your user page. Talk about Christmas spirit.--Cuchullain 17:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

I haven't had anything to do with this article in many many months, so this comment must be made in error. --DanielCD 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
OK Daniel, I was just sending to all parties involved as I read that you have been also involved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics . Please have my best regards. -- Bonaparte talk 15:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord to DanielCD

I'm told by ML that if I revert the Bigfoot page, I will be blocked.

Is this true? DreamGuy and Zoe and others have made an unusuable mess of it.

Their concept is that skeptics who do nothing, just sit on chairs, and do 1% research are to be "balanced" (50/50) with researchers who do hundreds of hrs of fieldwork.

beckjordBeckjord 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord Calls For Attack Campain

How YOU can edit the Bigfoot article at WIKIPEDIA.ORG by Jon-Erik Beckjord (Premier Login beckjord) Forum Owner

Want to counteract the assh*les who keep messing it up?

DreamGuy and his pals?

go to http://www.en.wikipedia.org

go to Bigfoot by the search box.

Read article, see all the false sh*t.

Go to top of page.

[Beck's description of how to edit removed]

then click save.

Watch the bad guys get upset.

Then go back daily, and redo what they undid.

If we have ten people doing this, it will drive the skeptics NUTS.

  • --Just letting you know what the great ol smurf is up to. VilaWolf