User talk:Bobgat

Welcome!

Hello, Bobgat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Ansell 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically

You see, it's quite telling that the two of you keep coming back here and harassing me. I left your entry alone so you could do with it what you please, and you keep coming back here again and again to antagonize me. Yes, you need to grow up. I am not harassing you on your talk pages. Leave me alone. Bobgat 06:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, read the terms of service. Continually reverting this entry constitutes an edit war. I left you alone. Now it's your turn. Bobgat 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to wade too deeply into your dispute here, but please don't make personal attacks on other users; calling other editors "morons" is not likely to promote a civil atmosphere here on Wikipedia, and it would be greatly appreciated if you could stay cool while discussing. With regards to your talk page, it's generally not a good idea to delete parts of your talk page to hide certain discussions (especially the warning I gave you a few days ago), but I won't be restoring it for now.

I'm giving you a 12-hour block at present; this is not a punitive measure, but for you to cool off from your present dispute. I hope you can return and edit in a constructive and civil manner once the block expires. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. theProject 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to cool off. I haven't edited anything recently. I left those kids alone and won't bother with their little Steve Nash page again. This is THEM coming to ME and harassing ME. BTW, you should look at what Chensiyuan wrote on 168.99.142.151's talk page. This is apparently what he likes to do - harass people he disagrees with. Bobgat 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably be aware that Chensiyuan has already been warned for that incivility. Anyway, I only have one further thing to add, and that's that nobody owns Wikipedia articles. The article on Steve Nash doesn't belong to anybody, so it's not "their little page"; in the same manner, you don't own your talk page either, as it is part of the Wikipedia project. theProject 06:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at least i dont delete my talkpage because i got nothing to hide.Chensiyuan 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to hide either. I was trying to get rid of YOUR bile to keep things civil. It wasn't anything of mine that I was hiding. Now, grow up and go away. Bobgat 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said "their little page" because it is theirs. It was made clear to me that this is apparently a democracy. As long as they have the numbers, they can put anything they want up there, whether it is true or not. Nash has a huge Canadian following, and so his entry is guarded by Canadians. There are a bunch of Canadian kids here who are passionate about Nash being Canadian, but nobody who is passionate about accuracy in nationality. Thus, they get their way. I butted heads with them, and they won because they have numbers. That's fine. I left them alone, and they came here to harass me for whatever reason. If someone came to your talk page and said nasty things, you wouldn't be happy about it. It's not a matter of me needing to cool down, it's a matter of them needing to grow up and leave things alone. Had they left me alone, I wouldn't have responded to them and I wouldn't have ever bothered with their entry again. As it is, I am not going to bother with their article again anyway, because they are just foaming at the mouth to revert anything I change anyway, because I am the guy who had the nerve to question their authority-by-numbers. So be it. I am an adult and have better things to do than "war" over a Wikipedia entry. But if they are going to come to my back yard and be uncivil to me, that's another story. Bobgat 06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just don't call other editors morons, and I'll be more than happy to entertain your entreaties if anybody else calls you one. Sound good? :-) theProject 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. This whole thing has jaded me on the whole concept of Wikipedia though. The biggest strength (open editing) is also the biggest weakness, but I guess I was under the impression that accuracy and neutrality were what Wikipedia is here for. I mean, this is supposed to be encyclopedic, is it not? NPOV and accuracy do not jive with the concept of "consensus". You either strive for accuracy and neutrality, or you strive for consensus. It can't be both, because the concept of "consensus" makes it certain that inaccuracies will occur and remain.

In this case, some entries have the country of birth listed before citizenship, while some, because they are so closely guarded like Nash, only have country of citizenship listed. How is that, in any way, encyclopedic? Shouldn't Wikipedia be striving for uniformity? Wouldn't that lend credibility? Wouldn't that make it appear more professional? Bobgat 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem lies with your assumption that 'American' means citizenship. These words have a great amount of symbolic meaning. They hold a certain ideology. This is why people have trouble, in the case of Gretzky for example, putting 'American-Canadian' within the first few lines because it makes a bigger statement then simply providing the facts. If you are further interested in the matter (from what i have read you seem to be upset at the 'Canadians') you can check both the Steve Nash and Wayne Gretzky discussion sections. Aka khan 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussions. My problem isn't that I believe that "American" means citizenship, and if you had read the discussions you just told me to read, you would have known that. My problem with these fools is that the Nash kids said that Nash is Canadian because he is a Canadian citizen. Fine, so then Gretzky is Canadian-American, because he is an American citizen who resides in Canada. Nope, the Gretzky kids say that citizenship doesn't matter, that Gretzky is Canadian because, well, because they say so.

There is absolutely ZERO uniformity at Wikipedia. None. And when you make a change for accuracy's sake, you get people coming out of the woodwork to say that you are "inserting POV," when THEY are the only ones allowing POV to enter into the equation.

Nash considers himself Canadian and doesn't have South African citizenship, so fine, call him Canadian. But then Gretzky is Canadian-American, and Schwarzenegger is just American (not Austrian-American). If you want to consider Gretzky Canadian, well fine, then Nash is South African. Either way is fine. But it's got to be one or the other.

Or wait, no, it doesn't. Here at Wikipedia, "consensus" is what matters. Get together enough morons who agree with you, and you can assert that the sky is red. Ridiculous but completely true.

So, be proud. You can get together a bunch of people and bully anyone who dares edit your POV-laden tripe in the name of accuracy. Yeah, real encyclopedic endeavor you have going there. *rolls eyes*...what a joke. My opinion of Wikipedia has fallen completely into the toilet. It's high school. Nothing more. Bobgat 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]