Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.200.116.72 (talk) at 20:06, 11 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (through December 2005)
• Archive 2 (through January 25, 2006)
• Archive 3 (through February 9, 2006)

Notices

1) I archived the page. It was huge again, and most of the discussion was complaints by an editor and his sockpuppets who are now banned from Misplaced Pages for a year. All that should no longer be relevant to future work on the article.

2) Beckjord is banned, per the decision of ArbCom... That means if he or some anon IP or some new sockpuppet of his comes along, don't waste your time trying to improve it, remove it completely, because it's already been shown that he is POV-pushing and spamming, and trying to edit it to make it better means making the article worse. Reverting back to the last good version is the only reasonable option. DreamGuy 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article revision

DreamGuy, I think you prematurely reverted the Bigfoot article. The only problem is you didn't take the time to see the numerous good edits present that were also removed when you reverted to an earlier version, thus the article suffers a good deal of collateral damage that can be avoided. Many of the good edits are minor but are scattered throughout the article, so reinstating them would be a very tedious task.

Therefore, I think it’s best to just remove the blatant Beckjord advertising and nonesense from the current version rather than revert.

Secondly, a lot of the "Beckjord" stuff was written by MONGO, see edits. You two should discuss whether or not to keep the material rather than you simply jumping the gun and just removing it. --Every1blowz 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... Frankly, not seeing these "good edits", but if they are "minor," as you say, then it's better to revert the MAJOR problems and have people go through and re-add the minor improvements instead of keeping the major, major problems for the sake of a few minor additions. I certainly am not "jumping the gun" but removing blatant POV-pushing... and if the POV-pushing was, in fact, written by MONGO (which I haven't checked), then it's still wrong. DreamGuy 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think MONGO did filter a lot of Beckjord's, uh, information, in the current version - I've asked him to join this conversation. It would be good to work out a stable version we can all agree to here, now that we don't have Beckjord to deal with, yeah? I'll be happy to protect the page in the m:Wrong version, if it comes to that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a serious problem with this revert. Those are really Beckjord's edits that Mongo merely tried to clean up... they don't need to stay in any form. android79 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The information I added was indeed in a published periodical and was cited...now that periodical is no longer in print it is harder to reference but I did reference it. All it was was an article written by Beckjord and published in 1977 or 78....it cannot be cross referenced, but the names mentioned are key players in forensic science and DNA...especially Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Vincent Sarich. Though it cannot be cross referenced and I have searched for anything else related to these issues in vain, I also have no reason to doubt Beckjord's claim on this matter. Naturally I don't condone the personal attacks or buy into the wormhole/ufo nonsense. I don't really care if my edit stays or not...I may have trusted Beckjord based on his meeting (he claims to have met) with Kerley and I studied under Kerley and I do know that Kerley did do a lot of work on hair samples for forensic evidence.--MONGO 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of lying in print?

If what i read here by some of you is correct, you say that a published article by EB has to be fraudulent merely because the author is eb. The article deleted was Mar 81, and if you cannot personally find the scientists 20 + years later, then tough sh*t. They were contacted by media and other researchers in the years since and nobody has ever claimed any fraud.You asked for published references and articles, and then you jerks STILL bitch and moan. No wonder the outside world finds Wikipedai so un-credible. Disgusting.

Can't sleep,jerks are reverting. Member BF editing committee.

I have no opinion one way or the other, if that's not already apparent. Every1Blowz? Opinion? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the source is that vague and obscure, I don't think we can use it. android79 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since MONGO has no problems then we can remove it. --Every1blowz 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse...but I am thinking this matter over at this time. I have attempted to make contact with Tom Moore who is now retired to see if anything else about the hair diagnosis was published. Bear in mind that nothing I put in the article offered proof of bigfoot...it was just a summary of events as detailed in the published work.--MONGO 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

thrust of hair article

As stated in the article, finding unknown primate hair and blood is not proof Bigfoot exists, but is evidence that calls for further study, and justifies such study. Is anyonhe so stupid here as to think the article said Bigfoot was proven?

--Can't sleep, more idiots are being born daily. BFEC.

Why not just accept what was published?

You assholes are accusing the author of lying.

Every1su*ks (not blowz). BF editing committee.

Shadowlands link:

Bigfoot: Food, hostile encounters. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 06:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it while examining rumors of Bigfoot attacking people. The movie The Legend of Boggy Creek is about some people who has had a run-in w/ this thing, it attacks them, sending one to the hospital. Martial Law 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some claim that this thing shies away from people, instead of attacking them. The link above appearantly supports reports that this thing will attack people. Martial Law 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On the link, see RE.:Are They Dangerous ? Martial Law 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION

What is the Latin American designation for Bigfoot, sasquatch ?

Keypad acted up. Martial Law 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain that there is a creature like this in the Latin American nations. Martial Law 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm only referring to a geographical area that is from the US/Mexican border towards the South Pole, no more, no less. Did'nt mean to offend any one, just asking about the possibility of a creature that is in that area of the world. Martial Law 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

More pictures please

Does anyone else think this article needs more pictures of a Bigfoot? I mean there's an awfull lot of text but only one photo. I'm worried this may keep some readers thoroughly bored, maybe even those interested in the subject. I think the epitome of a good article is one which is both well written (we've got that part nailed) but also a well illustarted article. We're obviously lacking in the latter department.

I have noticed that we've removed two other pictures so far. One from NIMBA creations (a model sasquatch or something) and another from Beckjord. That's good. The former was blatant advertising and the other wasn't even very good; basically what we already had except a blown-up, crappier, and gray-scaled version of it.

wrong

The B&W image submitted by eb was very detailled, and it is reported he took several months to get the enlargement so large from a one mm. film image. It was presented in B&W to show more detail than the color shows. (B&W does have more detail than color. Got it?) It will return, and is public domain. The problem here is that teens with no life except playing cop on Wiki have actually decided they are now photo experts and think they are editing experts in a setting where, as EB says, any 8 yr old can, (but shouldn't) edit.(look at the Diane Feinstein political edits.) Witness the truly pompous comments by the arrogant DreamGuy in the edits. He actually thinks he is someone important. Grapes is a close second. Yes, more photos are needed, but you guys are not the ones to judge which will be here.

Every1su*ks (not blowz). Part of the BF editing committee.

Anyway, I think if someone stumbles upon an excellent or noteworthy picture which we can use I don't see any problems with adding it to the current article.

Opinions anyone? --Every1blowz 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go to the shadowlands link, any other bigfoot link. They have some pixes of this thing on them. Martial Law 01:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google Search:"Bigfoot Pixes". Does this help ? Martial Law 01:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a pix of one that is used to promote the movie The Legend of Boggy Creek. Martial Law 01:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Pixes to select

Not fictional drawings. Bonk!

Can't sleep,Clowns are eating me.