User talk:Nostrum/ban
This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.
Do to his past persistent vandalism of the Catholicism page, and now his comeback defacing the Holocaust page, this page was a proper response. 172 11:01, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Nostrum just vandalized this page, removing the contents above. 172 08:25, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Keep in mind you had announced yet you wanted to list this page on Votes for deletion, you just named it a ban page, very derogatory. I was not aware such pages existed. You act like a member of the KKK.Nostrum 01:19, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Understandably. He probably see's this as a personal attack. He says himself that he has learned a lot about NPOV. Instead of continually hasling him and treating him badly, why don't you reach out to him and help him understand his errors, by talking to him? This is ridiculous, making /ban pages for users is almost always not the right thing to do. If you really need to discuss banning, this really isn't the place, the e-mail list is. I am listing this page on VfD. マイカル (MB) 19:12, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
'In favor of a ban:
- 172 00:20, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC) (His vandalism of Catholicism, his insistence on restoring his illiterate, bigoted anti-Catholic rant, his obnoxious, and insulting behavior warranted a ban weeks ago. His recent defacement of the Holocaust article warranted a ban as well, even without considering his past conduct. I will retract this stance if he is thoroughly reformed, but I doubt that this is possible.)
- Vancouverguy. Nostrum's whiteboard aptly shows why he should be banned.
- So 172 should be banned too for creating this page? What specifically about his white board warrants banning? Creating a page advocating the banning of another user does not qualify as a bannable offense. --Jiang 01:45, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Against a ban:
- MB 00:34, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC) -- There is no reason to belive that he meant this as vandalism. Why don't you provide some direction for him rather than jumping to the conclusion that he means harm ?! It is people like you that makes wikipedia a hard place for newbies who make mistakes. DON'T BITE THE NEWBIES!!!! I suggest you appologize to Nostrum, less you may make a permanent enemy. Stop it with you witch-hunts. They really don't help at all!
- MB: Take a look at the garbage he wanted to add to Catholicism. I'll never apologize to someone who persistently tried to add such garbage to an important article, referring to Born Again Christians as "New Born Christians" and Mormons as Catholics. Moreover, I don't appreciate the blatant hypocrisy of some brat who goes around disparaging the intelligence of other users, including myself, while posting bullshit written at a fourth grade level. I personally know elementary school students who could have written better content on Catholicism. 172 00:41, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Do I take it then 172 that you are switching your vote to "Against a ban" since you posted a signed message here. Anyway, I am definitely against a ban, on the evidence so far. Cimon Avaro on a pogostick.
- No, I was just reponding to MB's statements. I am strongly supportive of a ban. 172 01:36, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Do I take it then 172 that you are switching your vote to "Against a ban" since you posted a signed message here. Anyway, I am definitely against a ban, on the evidence so far. Cimon Avaro on a pogostick.