User talk:Beetle B.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 29-Mar, you blanked Dangi. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot article in your name

Just in case you don't know about this: There is an article on Slashdot in your name: Should Wikipedia Allow Mathematical Proofs? (More precisely it's supposed to be from "beetle_b@@@email...com".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Adler (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it - I submitted it. Beetle B. (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for bothering you then (and sorry that I forgot to sign). To me this move looked likely to escalate matters, somewhat inconsistent with your well-considered answers to Michael Hardy's overreactions. It appears that I have been wrong in more than one way, as the Slashdot discussion is quite constructive so far. Of course (as one could have expected) considerations of noteworthiness are a bit underrepresented there. -- Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely posted to Slashdot to have a reasonable discussion. I suspected that by the time it hit the front page, the issue would be over with (I think I was right about that). However, if that were not the case and people from Slashdot flooded that page with Keep or Delete comments, I see no problem with that scenario, either. Beetle B. (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette

Did you see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Michael Hardy this? Your name was mentioned. TableManners (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the guy who "wrestled the attacker" away from Tim Zagat

That was me. I was there. I almost lost my life (I never saw the knife in the dark theater). Tim Zagat never thanked me years later when I tried phoning him about the incident. I'm telling you that everything that happened was true. I'm the source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that it's true or false. I'm asking for verifiability as per Wikipedia policies. You can't cite yourself as a source - it's a violation of the No Original Research policy. Beetle B. (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it's "relevant" for this reason–suppose Tim Zagat is there in another movie theater about to be knifed; and suppose it's YOU wondering, hmm, should I risk my life to save him from a possible attacker? I don't know what you'll do. But, wouldn't it be nice to know in advance that if you did risk your life, that there was practically no chance that you'd ever get thanked for your effort?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. How is the fact that you became a prominent editor relevant to this incident? If you can get a source that says you saved him, then that's fine. That still doesn't justify stating that you're a Wikipedia editor in his article. Beetle B. (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely about sourcing. I can't say "a Wikipedian intervened to save Tim Zagat's life" since you're right, I was involved, and it would violate WP's WP:NOR. But you can. And I'm your source. I'm telling you it's true. I gave details that even the NY Times didn't have about seat positioning. Remember, there's a bigger purpose here, exposing stuff; it gets to the heart about what America is about, about what civilization is about, that we share information which is right. It's your call: keep the material? Or hide it. And, my recommendation to you is when prominent people (not the WP editor/me) but Tim Zagat fall beneath a basic standard such as having a minimal amount of gratitude and hang the phone up on people who risk their lives saving others, then people like you–people with integrity– (people who aren't hopefully Tim Zagat pretending to be someone else) will call them on it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? You are not my source as I did not verify it. The only thing you are a source for is a claim that is hard to verify, and not within Wikipedia's purview. You're telling me it's true, but you're mistakenly assuming that I accept it. How do I know the details about the seating is not just something you made up?

You may have a beef with Zagat, but Wikipedia is not the arena to settle it. And just a word of advice: If one demands gratitude, the act was not selfless. Don't expect gratitude from people who did not ask for your help - even if it saves his life. That thought may not be amenable to you, but the world doesn't bend to your view of it. Beetle B. (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joking. I'm telling the truth. There are too many things about my explanation of the incident that are internally consistent. The precise location of the players before the incident; it's consistent with the NY Times story (which got the details right btw.) Why was it that Zagat didn't die? The NY Times didn't explain this. He got knifed in a movie theater by a deranged guy. He was sitting down. The knifer was much bigger and standing. The fact that Zagat didn't die is explained by my intervention, since after the first or second plunge of the knife, I intervened. Why would I make this up? Zagat, as well, can verify exactly where he was sitting. He knows it's true. And, my act was indeed selfless, in that I intervened physically (when nobody else did); the rest of the moviegoers froze in place, either watching me and the homeless guy waddle to the front of the screen, or they kept watching the stupid Dances With Wolves movie. My action was a risk; I had nothing to gain from this risk. I hadn't known I was breaking up a knifing; I thought it was only a fistfight. And at one point, I could have been knifed when I let the assailant go. But if I hadn't acted, then perhaps Zagat would have died; I don't know. And, I didn't engage in the act to get some form of payment, or publicity, or thanks. But what surprised me was that a year or so later, when I tried calling Tim Zagat, he treated me like a nuisance. No thanks. No kind words. And, in my view, this isn't just about Zagat, or me, or homeless guys, or you, or Wikipedia, it gets to the heart of America, how people don't care much for each other any more, how the social fabric has broken down. I think it's important. Perhaps you don't. But it has ramifications. My contributions to Wikipedia are on some level voluntary, and the sense that "nobody cares" that "everybody is out for themselves" -- is this the kind of world you want to live in? And when you hush up stuff, you're just as bad, in my view, as the moviegoers who sat there like zombies. And, at least I had hoped, that some spirit of selflessness and common courtesy might still be alive on Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we need it to be externally consistent. As for the rest, I could coherently respond to it, but I'm not seeing the point. Suffice it to say that I'm not sympathetic to arguments along the lines of "Why else...?" "Why would...?" - particularly because it assumes people act with reason, and people very often don't. As for relating the issue to the "heart of America" (whatever that means), by all means do so. But as you said, it isn't about Wikipedia, so take the issue elsewhere. And sorry for thinking that Wikipedia shouldn't allow unverifiable claims. I feel it would be a worthless site if they started making the kinds of exceptions you're asking for. Beetle B. (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. I get emotional about this. If you were in my shoes, perhaps you'd know how I feel. And there are no places "elsewhere" for discussion any more. I'll let this subject go.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]