A recent quote (Dec. 7) from the here. The first line in italics is quoted from the "don't use Wikipedia" memo from the New York Times:

We shouldn't be using it to check any information that goes into the newspaper. - Wow. They were using Wikipedia to check information? Maybe we should issue a memo not to use the Times.

"Of course I'm a little bit perturbed whenever I see any of my Shakespearean-quality words edited by another user." - found this quote unsigned (and I didn't want to look it up).

Berkjord's Greatist Hits

"There is NO ONE IN CHARGE of this asylum. No ultimate authority except JIMBO, who is on vacation forever!" -by Beckjord, a comment at the talk page of Erik Beckjord I added the exclamation mark at the end. It was a period.
"Avoid WIKI POLICE" - Ibid.
"WHAT IS TO STOP SOMEONE WHO HATES ME FROM JUST REVERTING ANYWAY?" - Ahem...Ibid.
"They are OUT TO GIT ME!" - Ibid.
And finally:

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

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

and he should know..." - Ibid

Species page Topics Muallaqat

Conflicts

My first real squall at Wikipedia (after over 1.5 years of editing):

User talk:DreamGuy#Beckjord link - Dispute over a very minor detail that turned into a pissing contest. For ppl to reference in the future in regard to my integrity. I let the words stand for themselves, and I pretty much think his words make my case for me. --DanielCD 17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He either moved it to his archives or deleted it, so you will need to look there for it. --DanielCD 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Vandal msg.

Hello there! Thanks for experimenting with '''Wikipedia'''. Your test worked and has been reverted. You can play all you want in the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|Sandbox]], but please refrain from vandalizing the articles. People put a lot of hard work into them. Users who continue to vandalize can be blocked from editing. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Happy editing!--~~~~

Greeting

Hello there! Welcome to '''Wikipedia'''. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Also: you can play and experiment all you want in the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|Sandbox]]. Welcome, and Happy editing!--~~~~

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:DanielCD/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! L upin 01:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My response is on his talk page. --DanielCD 01:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 soley referring to his activities on Wikipedia, which is all I know of him. --DanielCD 06:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Taxonomy and Bigfoot

Some writers have tried to classify Bigfoot, but then get slapped down by scientists who require a dead body first. Some people suggest BF is Gigantopithecus blacki but the jaws do not match. - beckjordBeckjord 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

photo

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

beckjordBeckjord 21:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Message re Dream Guy

fair warning, your most recent contribution to the bigfoot article, while reaslly good, will probably get removed by dreamGuy as soon as his block expires.

Will you speak to dreamguy?

beckjordBeckjord 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Have a problem..

User:Beckjord accidentally created a whole Wiki page called Martial Law, my user designation, not what my designation is named after. Can this be placed under a very speedy delete ? Told him that a bug may be in the system.Martial Law 06:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Investigated the possibility that Beckjord had seen my user talk page as I'm seeing yours, thus explained the situation to him. Hope this has not caused any inconviences, and do apologise if that happened.Martial Law 08:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Complaint settled

Seen some Wiki regs. on the matter. Consider MY complaint settled.Martial Law 07:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can people report these things ? Another Admin. settled MY complaint.Martial Law 07:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) :)[reply]

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

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) :)[reply]

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.

Userpage vandalism

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

User talk:DanielCD