Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 4

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: Notices

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: What is the Latin American designation for Bigfoot, sasquatch ?
Keypad acted up. Martial Law 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not a Bigfoot phenomenon in any Latin American country folklore, as far I know. When Spanish-speakers talk about the Bigfoot of US, they called it also Bigfoot or its translation to Spanish, "Piegrande" (or "Pie Grande").--Menah the Great 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: QUESTION

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do a Google Search:"Bigfoot Pixes". Does this help ? Martial Law 01:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More pictures please 

message: Go this Gallery of Bigfoot Pixes to see pixes of Bigfoot. Martial Law 10:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Bigfoot Pixes

message: This link has some real shockers on it, incl. what appears to be Bigfoot feces that was allegedly found, and it has more links than the Mysteries Megasite website. Is this link for real, and if it is credible, can it be placed ? Martial Law 11:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not credible. Haven't you posted that link before? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shocking Link

message: One is the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization, the other is the Oregon Bigfoot Research Organization. Both are mentioned above as persuant to a request for Bigfoot pics. Each state may have one or more of these Bigfoot Organizations. The former was www.gcbro.com and the latter was www.oregonbigfoot.com . Am checking the Gulf Coast site. Stand by. Martial Law 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gulf Coast Research Org. investigates all reports of this nature in the Gulf States area, from Florida to Texas. Martial Law 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Bigfoot Organizations

message: This thing says that all suggestions are to be brought HERE.
2nd Sentence, in the one w/ the padlock in it. Martial Law 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:S-Protect Template

message: What about this link ? Martial Law 09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also has some Bigfoot pixes on here as well. Martial Law 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Friends of Bigfoot

message: Should it be stated that readers can use the External Links: The links for the Bigfoot Organizations to report their own encounters ? Some of these organizations send out personnel who will investigate the incident in a similar manner as that of a police investigation. Only that NO crime has been committed. User:Beckjord did raise some points about Wikipedia being a "how to" reference - such as First Aid and some war protocol for civilians. Martial Law 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BFRO is already there (in external links) so I guess you can add a little description informing people that that is an excellent place to report sightings. I don't have any problems with that. There is also several other such websites where you can report encounters so I really don't see the point of adding any other websites, if you plan to that is. --Every1blowz 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard from one editor that the BFRO is scandal ridden. The claim comes from www.beckjord.com. That is why I'm asking about other bigfoot investigative organizations. Martial Law 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Any wikipedians seen/encountered this thing ? Your encounter may help solve this mystery once and for all. Martial Law 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets keep your reports in Wiki compliance. Martial Law 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please bear in mind WP:NOR, Martial Law. Wikipedia isn't the right venue for trying to solve the mystery. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Martial Law 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One Wikipedian has reported a encounter w/ this thing, and I did state to keep things in Wiki compliance.  Martial Law 08:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologise for any errors here. Martial Law 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone ''here'' seen/encountered this thing ?

message: Each state has a Bigfoot Research Organization in them, since all 50 states have reported encounters with them and other bizarre creatures, such as the Mothman and/or the Chupacabra, Champ. Where can this statement be placed w/o messing up the article ? Martial Law 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty notable that each state has such an orginization and I wouldn't have any issues with you adding a very brief mention of that fact somewhere in the "Bigfoot phenomenon" section. Of course before you do we need to have some other users voice their opinions. --Every1blowz 21:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of these "reporting organizations" are just some random guy's website, though. That would eed to be demonstrated incorrect before it would make sense to me to include such info. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Each State in USA

message: User:BunchofGrapes is a Admin. Martial Law 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen the recent communications. Should I continue to bring things here or just throw them into the article ?  Martial Law 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, as are all users, welcome to edit the article. I implore you to exercise brutal judgement in what sources you cite. It's very easy to find unreliable sources in this subject area. Rule of thumb: No web pages. No blogs. Magazines, books, and newspapers only. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. What about this link:Bigfoot FAQs ? Reason I've been having sites "vetted" is to make sure they're credible, incl. the link to Sasquatch FAQs. Is that site credible ? Martial Law 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 03:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is broken and whatever "go offsite" is supposed to mean, it doesn't help. But I can still answer the question: it's not credible. No web pages. No blogs. Magazines, books, and newspapers only. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One recent reverted communication claims you, Admin. BunchofGrapes, that you are not a Admin. What is going on ?! Martial Law 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did investigate that rumor and found it false. I know you are a Admin. Martial Law 04:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: This link says that PBS has investigated some Bigfoot Reports. Should I place this one ? Martial Law 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PBS And Bigfoot

message: What about this link: Sasquatch Research Organization ? Martial Law 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sasquatch Research

message: This link is about a magazine concerned with paranormal matters, here, it is bigfoot. Martial Law 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I get a ruling on this site/magazine ? More and more magazines are now going online AS internet magazines. Martial Law 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazine

message: This link will take you to this organization: Bigfoot Research Organization. Martial Law 09:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot RESEARCH organization

message: This is an original source, so it can't be quoted, but it is an interesting site comparing "bigfoot" tracks to bear tracks.  http://www.spiritone.com/~brucem/bigf1.htm
Artiemishi 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bigfoot Tracks" Link 

message: I live in a neighboring county.  Skamania's "sasquatch" ordinances were jokes.  They were never codified.  See http://www.skamaniacounty.org/bpc/html/index.htm
Artiemishi 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skamania County 

message: Bigfoot tracks and WHAT appears to be Bigfoot feces: From the GCBRO. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely useless. 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot tracks and - well - Bigfoot ?

message: This link purports to explain everything about Bigfoot. Martial Law 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a magazine, book, or newspaper? No. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This "Explains" everything about [[Bigfoot]]

message: This seems to be incredibly, well, wrong.  The article describes tracks, but the tracks being described are clearly the hoaxed tracks created by Ray Wallace.  Actual tracks do not have this.
Enormous human-like footprints attributed to this creature gave rise to the name "Bigfoot". Ecologist Robert Michael Pyle describes them as follows: "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to twenty inches or more in length. They have five toes, a double-muscle ball, and a wide arch" (Pyle, 3).
Cryptomundo has recent articles on this and images that compare fake prints made by Wallace to others that are believed to be genuine.  With this in mind, it seems like it would be very bad to leave this in the article.
Freshyill 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoax tracks 

message: These are Strange Magazine and Bigfoot in the Newspapers. Martial Law 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange magazine might be an acceptable source, if there was something in there that improved the article. Your second and third links are really just search engines... not content providers. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This says that Bigfoot is to be CAPTURED. Martial Law 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it. Anybody can do a web search and find a bunch of sites that mention Bigfoot. Can you write anything encyclopdic based any of this? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some mention sightings, which could be placed in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory. Apologise if I was in error. Martial Law 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything already here concerning a Loren Coleman ? If not, see this link about Loren Coleman. Martial Law 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Magazine sources / other sources

message: Just came back from monitoring a ice storm(still watching it), checked the "history" section on this page. What is this "Edit Committee" ? For affected Wikipedians, go to The Weather Channel Website and/or to The Accuweather Website, other weather related websites, your local TV and/radio news outlets. So far, there has been no appreciable activity with this storm at all. Martial Law 06:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you really not figured that out, ML? The "Edit Committee" is User:Beckjord, who resets the clock on his one-year ban every time he makes an edit. Since he has been banned by ArbCom ruling, any user is free to (and encouraged to) immediately roll his edits back. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been away, monitoring a deadly storm potential threat, a military oriented bigfoot incident, which I can't relate here due to WP:NOR protocol, the Fouke, Arkansas situation, a ongoing UFO incident in a another state, the Phoenix UFO situation(hopefully unrelated to the infamous Phoenix Lights situation), the military/political situation in Iran(Iran says they'll go ahead w/ their nuke program) and Iraq. If that gets any worse, the US and allies may initiate conscription. Martial Law 23:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard a report in which a USMC detachment had, while on a live fire exercise(REAL ammo is used in this) shot and killed a Bigfoot during this training exercise. Heard no further info. on this, so I can't confirm, nor deny this either. Martial Law 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Committee ?

message: Both are Bigfoot Encyclopedia One, incl. experts
Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia link two Martial Law 08:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Encyclopedia Links

message: This is the International Bigfoot Society. Martial Law 08:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot Society

message: Worldsearch > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot
Are any of these any good ? Martial Law 09:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Search > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot

message: This one mirrors Wikipedia, except for the new info. in this link:Nationmaster > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot
There are some subheadings for the reader to click on, such as sighting reports, what the creature is, etc. , but it has info. that Wikipedia does'nt have at all, such as a body cast taken in a area that a Bigfoot was spotted in by researchers. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 09:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial Law, if you see a page that "mirrors Wikipedia, except for new info", what you are actually looking at is a page that is mirroring an older version of this wikipedia page. Bringing it to our attention isn't useful. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Encyclopedia

message: What about this link: Factbites Encyclopedia Martial Law 05:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia mirrors: if the site is a mirror of Wikipedia, using part or all of its info from Wikipedia, the new info you're finding is most likely just things that were originally edited out of the old Wikipedia article, for one reason or another. Since there were reasons behind these edits, it's probably not best to return these to the current Wikipedia article. Therefore, a good rule of thumb is if you see a site that mirrors Wikipedia, don't bother bringing it up here: it's already been edited out. Thanks Martial. --Firsfron 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia, other Encyclopedias featured

message: Someone had thrown this link out of the Bigfoot article. It is about Bigfoot reports made in the early 19th Century to the present. Martial Law 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tossed Material

message: This magazine is Bigfoot Times. Can this be used ? Martial Law 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To continue a point someone else made above: ML, please stop scouring the web for every Bigfoot-related site you can find. You're about 0 for 200 with links and sources that would be useful or relevant. There's nothing useful on the web related to this topic that isn't already used in the article. That's simply the nature of the beast, as it were. android79 03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the views held by those that are religious, who claim it is a demon or The Devil, the New Agers' claim of it being a spirit guide, claims made about it attacking people, saving people, killing dogs, one or more links said it killed people, raiding farms and garbage dumps,people shooting at it with no effect,the other sightings going on since the '60s ? Martial Law 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one really weird topic. I do apologise if I have been in error. Martial Law 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard a military account on Coast To Coast AM in which, last year, a Marine allegedly shot and killed a bigfoot during a live fire(REAL ammunition is used) exercise. Martial Law 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on that, some may interpret this as that Bigfoot are demons. Martial Law 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be stated in the article w/o causing any problems ? Martial Law 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I do apologise if I have been in error. Martial Law 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazine

message: This organization is called I.B.A.G.. Not much is known about it. All contact info is in the "Home" section. Martial Law 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, this is just useless junk.  You're not adding to the discussion one bit with all of this. It's been brought to your attention by many other people, so I think it's more than fair to say that you realize that what you're doing is not helpful, and is in fact hurting the discussion.  If you feel absolutely compelled to post random useless links to sites with no actual content, why not just start your own blog about it and stop trying to hinder the discussion here? 65.223.249.151 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Bigfoot Organization

message: The USA Today has ran this article about a Bigfoot, and this is a HIGHLY regarded newspaper. Martial Law 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-bigfoot-cover_x.htm . Martial Law 08:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither link works...I tried...what was significant about it?--MONGO 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely nothing, as usual. He's just a vandal trolling here to annoy people. -- 65.223.249.151 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NATIONAL NEWSPAPER

message: It is best to bring what I find here to the discussion page than it is to have what I find tossed out for being "unencyclopediac", etc. after placing what I find directly into the article itself. After all, this is a discussion page. This is the 3rd time explaining this. Martial Law 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compliance

message: CNN article on Malaysia's Bigfoot Martial Law 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In compliance, can I get a ruling on this link ? Martial Law 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CNN Article

message: I have been contributing to talk unlike your latest revert's edit summary declares, DreamGuy...why haven't you? Your revert continuously adds a mispelled word and retitles one section with "feces" and there is nothing in that section about feces.--MONGO 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False accusations in edit summary 

message: Why do the sightings STOP at 1967 ? The incident in Malaysia had taken place last year.
Google Search:"Bigfoot News", and you get sightings that happened since 1967, and some of these things have been videotaped. I do apologise if I've been in error. Martial Law 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do...

message: This Bigfoot Sightings Database has reports made from the '60s
to the present. Is this link usable for placing in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory ? Martial Law 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot Sightings Database

message: The Discovery Channel has aired this: Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science on 3-2-06 at 11pm EST/EDT. This was about Bigfoot. Thought you guys might want to know about this matter. Martial Law 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be. --DanielCD 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery Channel

message: I redid some of the section headers to make (what I feel is) a firmer outline. The "Conclusion" section is kind of disorganized and needs sorting. 
The article is very big, but there's nothing wrong with that. If old sources are used, just make it plain to the reader that this is coming from a source that is old/dated or whatever, and say why you are using it. (Why are we citing dated material? Are we?). 
Just to recap: Organization and "prettifying" the article can allow for more info to be added without ppl getting upetty (pretty = more forgiving). Just make sure that the organization stays firm. Perhaps someone can improve on what I've done there with the outline. ..? --DanielCD 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm pretty sure the MOS says you shouldn't have first level headings in an article, but I confess I took them out before I read the talk page, so now I feel a little bad. Still, I doubt that a more intricate and hierarchical TOC is really what the article needs. If you want to restore it, though, you should deepen the lower headers, not throw a level-1 around them. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I was just trying to give it a form and was hoping someone would tidy it up. It just needs to be firm as to what info is where. I don't care about the header size. --DanielCD 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any tidying would help this article..it essentially needs a rewrite I think, but not sure what order to place things at this moment. Have a look at the MOS for a few featured articles if you're looking for some sort of standardization I guess.--MONGO 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an excellent idea. They have some pretty good example articles. --DanielCD 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: The History Channel has aired a show called: Decoding the Past:Monsters on 3-9-06 at 21:00 hrs EST/EDT. Bigfoot, aka, the yeti was featured. Is this useful ? Martial Law 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Channel

message: Can the info. presented on these channels be used ? Martial Law 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary Channels

message: Where do I place this link ? This is the latest news concerning the monster. Martial Law 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize that 80% of this page has topics started by you? Seriously dude, stop asking people and be bold.
Please sign your statements. Martial Law 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest News: Malaysian Bigfoot

message: Could this be stated:"To report one, use the external links.", and where at ? The First Aid article has protocol that advises people how to treat injuries, gunshot wounds and the like. Martial Law 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting a Encounter

message: I am in a rural area in which people will shoot any and all intruders, including these things. This is how it goes down: 1. You smell it, hear it, even see it. 2. You draw your weapon
and attempt to take it down, since you automatically believe it is a threat to YOU, only that ammo has no known effect on it (I have seen a report in which one was killed by hunters who thought it was a bear ). 3. It runs from you. 4. You report it, only to have Dispatch ridicule you, especially about your sanity, intelligence, and your sobriety. So, where do you report this thing without that kind of hassle ? Martial Law 00:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One other thing

message: Might I diffidently suggest that some of you read this book and edit the section dealing with the Patterson film acordingly?  Enjoy!
As you all know, Roger Patterson died in 1972, but Long was able to track down his confederates and eventually obtained a complete confession.  The monkey suit turns out to have been a hand modified version of a commmercially available gorilla suit.  Long also obtained much information on the possible motivation of the "ringleader" of the hoax, Roger Patterson.---CH 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, no less than three people have confessed to making the suit, and no less than four have confessed to being inside it!  Case solved - Hoax X 3.  WilyD 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patterson film

message: The article is much too lengthy, fails to take proper account of the Long book (which I think any unbiased reader will regard as definitively debunking the Patterson hoax), and reports too credulously unverified claims, e.g. Krantz said he gave casts to 40 experts and they mostly said they thought gotta be real, but apparently we only have Krantz's word for this. ---CH 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please rewrite!

message: The organization is Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers which is set up by 
Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal, incl. Bigfoot.
This is a invite to you all. Martial Law 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Organization

message: Where can it be stated,"that when some people see this thing, they'll draw their weapon, say out of their truck and/or on their person, and shoot at it."? I am currently in a rural area and the people I'm close to will shoot at anything - or anyone. In the Fouke Incident,
it is mentioned that people has shot at this thing and even set dogs on it. Martial Law 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that, the 100th time you've asked that? Nowhere -- it's unencyclopedic and largely unverifiable. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentary The Legend of Boggy Creek mentions people shooting at a Bigfoot, even setting dogs on it. 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Legend of Boggy Creek is not a documentary. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons Use

message: How can this be stated  and where at ? -  "If you believe that you have encountered one or more of these creatures, the external links may be used to report the encounter(s) with this thing. Be advised that some of these organizations that created the links presented here will send out investigators and investigate the incident in the SAME manner as that of a police investigation, only that no known crime has been committed."
The First Aid article advises people to do certain things, contrary to WP:Not states, such as handling burns, fractures and the like. Martial Law 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a poor way to state it. ---J.Smith 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It CAN'T be stated, it's completely unencyclopedic. The First Aid article is about aiding, so of course it would make sense to do some of that. This article has no possible reason to make any recommendations direct to its readers. Seriously, dude, you've been here a while and yo keep askig about the same things that we keep explaining to you and you never seem to learn. DreamGuy 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I did'nt ask, someone else would have, and they may not be so polite about it. Martial Law 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How can ''this'' be stated ?

message: User:Gabeshaughnessy added the following to the article -- "It is possible the bigfoot is not a physical being but rather a forest spirit, Banjankri, unavailable to the rational mind and only accessible through intuitive pursuit.". It lasted half an hour before being skittled. It was probably a windup by Gabeshaughnessy who hadn't made any previous edits. But boy oh boy, did it ever demonstrate one of the serious problems of Wikipedia. This article is stock full of absolute nonsense. But yet, when someone adds something similar it gets axed and the screed of existing nonsense remains.  Move over Lucky69, and RickK and all the other seasoned editors who left Wikipedia in disgust, I'm getting closer to joining you every day.   Moriori 08:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I love it, I mean I really do absolutely LOVE it

message: As this talk page seems busy I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this over on the Yeti Talk page (Emperor 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Yeti]]?

message: Who is "Lcoleman@maine.rr.com"?
Is the famous cryptozoologist himself here on Wikipedia? Anyway, this Wikipedians "contributions" so far seems to be shameless self-promotion, sensationalism and a greedy desire to sell books. Shouldn´t this guy be reported to the administrators of this site? He gives cryptozoology and Wikipedia a bad name, and is incredibly annoying! :(
--Danielos2 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lauren Coleman?=

message: Of course it has that template because it is a mysterious creature. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template