User talk:Fiziker

Bigfoot kudos
Your recent edits seemed worth commenting upon. It's refreshing to see that a controversial article on my watchlist has had good edits made to it when I periodically check in to see how it's doing. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've certainly noticed your edits to Bigfoot related articles; they were good. During the summer I tried bring the Bigfoot related articles to a higher standard but I haven't gotten around to giving pages like Evidence Regarding Bigfoot the work they desperately need. —Fiziker t c 22:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Delaware Valley map.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Delaware Valley map.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Delaware Valley map.png
Thanks for uploading File:Delaware Valley map.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sasquatch2 blocking
✅. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job. —Fiziker t c 04:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes for mythical creatures
Can we have a bit more discussion before you change everything, please? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the talk page. There hasn't been any discussion for a while so I thought everyone was OK with this. —Fiziker t c 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For me the result of the discussion seemed to be that no action was necessary. When you put the project template on the template talk page, my watchlist reminded me that I was planning to propose usage documentation. Therefore I started sighting the way the template is currently being used. I only realised what you were doing after posting the new thread. Thanks for stopping for now. I am slightly worried that the result of the discussion would be a bit prejudiced otherwise.
 * Unfortunately it's already about midnight for me now, so we may not come to a definite consensus before I go to sleep. I hope that's OK. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I notified the Paranormal project about the problems earlier today when I saw their request in the documentation. I expect it will take a while to come to a consensus, and even if no one responds we should probably wait a few days before taking action. —Fiziker t c 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of megafauna discovered in modern times
Along the lines of the lists we have been looking at, you might be interested in List of megafauna discovered in modern times. I've been trying to improve it, but its still poorly cited and I'm afraid its become a nexus for people wanting to add things in an unsubstantiated way to bolster crytozoological claims. Locke9k (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added that to my watch list a few days ago when I came upon it while assessing articles for WP:SKEPTIC. I have yet to really look at but I will in the future. Thanks. —Fiziker t c 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch!
Good catch here! Thanks. -- BRangifer (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Fiziker t c 09:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology
I reverted your edit to parapsychology because your edit summary was false no implication I'd seen at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.114.215 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the lead has a number of problems which I will take a look at when I have the time. What you wrote was POV because it implied that psychic phenomena exist. I am however, satisfied with including "possibility". I'll take a further look and comment on the talk page when I'm free to do so. —Fiziker t c 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please put comments, which don't belong in an existing thread under a new heading. You can do this by clicking the + tab at the top. Thanks —Fiziker t c 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Physicists are Notorious Liars About the Higher Dimensions and Their Inhabitants
Physicists stopped thinking about the higher dimensions somewhere back in the early 70's. Reason being is at that time all true higher dimensional studies became top secret governmental studies, leaving the private sector to simply memorize and regurgistate the many false hypothesis that they had acquired like so much garbage over the years. Physicists today are incapable of discarding known null hypothesis such as the hypercube, which still clutters up thousands of physics books. Physicists today are furthermore, heavily biased in their pseudo-scientific studies because they cannot deal with the actual existence of interdimensional people such as the Bigfoot people. Ultimately they end up wasting their lives, by trying to steer society away from the truth about the readily proveable higher dimensions, in public places such as wikipedia. 98.232.143.96 (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Evidence regarding Bigfoot
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Evidence regarding Bigfoot. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Evidence regarding Bigfoot. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
Vatsan34 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UD listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UD. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:UD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sasquatch sightings in Mexico?
The distribution on your map of North America would seem to favor the possibility of Bigfoot reports in Mexico, at least in Baja California or the states south of Texas. Have you or anyone you know heard of any? knoodelhed (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not know. Bigfoot started in northern California, so while I don't know what the distribution is inside California, the legend's origins along with its popularity in Oregon and Washington suggest to me that the claims of sightings are probably more toward the north of the state. I also suspect that the language barrier has limited the number of people in Mexico who believe in Bigfoot, which in turn would reduce the number of sighting claims. It would probably be interesting to put together a map of claimed Bigfoot and chupacabra sightings. I don't have a clue who might keep records on chupacabra claims, but there's probably an interesting shift somewhere in the U.S.'s Southwest with Bigfoot dominating to the north and chupacabra to the south. —Fiziker t c

Proposed deletion of Dark Harvest (2004 film)


The article Dark Harvest (2004 film) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews. Only review cited is from a blog."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)