User talk:Fiziker/Archive 2008

Black hole electron

Hi David: Have you read the "Talk:Black hole electron" material? From your perspective, does the logic sequence shown appropriatly support the conclusion that the electron Compton wavelength value is, 4 pi (3 pi hG/c)exponent 1/4 ? Let me know.--DonJStevens (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, I forgot about this message and then I've been quite busy for some time. I'm afraid I can't help you with that question. My only knowledge of this theory is from the article.—David618 ^t 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dark Harvest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dark Harvest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Fiziker a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Happy Birthday Fiziker, this time from a religious Jew! Idontknow610^TM 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: bigfoot DNA thing

Oh! I have no idea how I managed to miss that when I was specifically looking for it. Thanks for correcting my mistake. - Vianello (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. —Fiziker ^t 01:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sasquatch

Hi. 1) Home erectus can indeed be shortened in that context to H. erectus, if you would prefer that format, I'm certainly not going to mind. 2) Ape-like is more appropriate, as some of the cryptozoological explanations in the article involve extinct species, both likely ancestry to modern human, that are not normally considered apes. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when are the recent ancestors of Homo sapiens not apes? Sometimes people use apes to mean non-human apes but I believe that ape-like is more misleading. If bigfoot were to exist, it would most certainly be a member of Hominoidea. —Fiziker ^t 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In common usage, "apes" usually excludes humans and human ancestors. I am well aware that that is not really correct, however, I felt it was worth it to make the distinction. Also, may I suggest that we shouldn't worry too much about what the case would be if bigfoot were to exist? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we don't presuppose its existence in describing it, then we might as well just say that bigfoot is a imaginary creature that people think they see. Saying ape-like is just silly in my opinion. I'd like to reduce the amount of foolishness in the article as much as I can (this is certainly one of the most minor ones). —Fiziker ^t 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bigfoot Sightings in USA.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bigfoot Sightings in USA.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.: Bigfoot Sightings, Re.:Fouke

Why did you remove the Bigfoot sightings in Fouke, Arkansas? Those sightings inspired the creation of three movies, incl. The Legend of Boggy Creek which is a movie about what happened in Fouke, Arkansas. Yes, you removed a really famous sighting. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I know why the Bigfoot article is "protected". 205.240.146.248 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bigfoot#Famous reported sightings for my response. If the Fouke Monster is indeed a Bigfoot rather than a Bigfoot-like monster I'd be happy to return it. As for your insinuation about protection: I'm not an admin so I can't remove protection on a page, but I assume the page is protected because of repeated vandalism (see what gets done to the talk page [1]). —Fiziker ^t c 02:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Norman Nixon/Freedom ship

[2]

The above is the revision by Norman Nixon, IP Address 68.56.91.95. Poor guy. -- Zblewski|talk  02:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The page lists the edit as occurring on 1 July rather than 30 June. I didn't change that because I didn't know if 30 June applied only to the other information. I added a link to the edit. —Fiziker ^t c 03:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bigsquatch

Given your interest in improving Bigfoot-related articles, I thought I'd suggest a couple that could use some work: Patterson-Gimlin film and Ape Canyon. I've also been adding Category:Bigfoot to relevant articles, in an attempt to attain some level of organization. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't started to look at those and similar articles (besides the Bigfoot trap). —Fiziker ^t c 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Misguided Vandalism Accusation

My edits were not vandalism. It seems ridiculous that the bigfoot article completely omits the explanation of actual people being misidentified as bigfoot. So I added a section. Your assertion that I have committed vandalism appears dishonest to me. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly the section I added was not well written or researched, but considering that it is based on common sense, in its incipience, it did not need to be well researched. Unusually large persons in dark lit areas could easily be mistaken for a Sasquatch. I don't know why that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Bigfoot for my responce. My suspician of vandalism was appropriate considering the content you added. —Fiziker ^t c 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)