User talk:Nostrum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi Nostrum, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your highly POV edits to Catholicism - they are rambling, with poor grammar & spelling, and just not Wikipedia caliber. It's clear you are on some anti-Catholic kick; there are other places on the net to vent yourself - not here. Since you insist on revelling(spelling error) in the so-called "sex-abuse scandal", you may consider working on the article Catholic priests' sex(grammer error) abuse scandal. Harris7 02:08 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You are right that I do not support many of the Catholic standards, but there is no such thing as, "Wikipedia caliber." If you think I spell poorly then you can sinply edit the spelling, you do know how to spell, don't you. Censor something else.
There are basic requirements of accuracy and NPOV (Neutral Point of View). People are also expected to be able to communicate that NPOV is a clear manner. Your edits are inaccurate, not remotely NPOV and almost unreadable. People on wiki come from all viewpoints, all religions and none, all political analyses and all cultures and all, without exception, are required to follow the wiki requirements of accuracy and NPOV. Anything that you write that fails to meet those standards will be deleted. If you want any of your work to survive on wiki and not be deleted then learn how to write in an NPOV manner. If your agenda is to use wiki to bash some group, whether it is Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Arabs, gays, straights, men, women, black or white or any group, then go elsewhere. Point of View (POV) rantings are not tolerated on wikipedia and will be deleted on sight and you will be just wasting your time putting them on because they will all end up in the bin.
If you want to contribute, learn to write in an NPOV manner. That is what Harris7 meant by "wikipedia caliber". If you cannot reach that standard, then you will be wasting your time here. FearÉIREANN 02:45 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View means attributing material, that appears to you to be a matter of opinion, to those who hold that opinion. It does not necessarily mean removing the material. After all even if the material is not in itself true, it may still be a fact that some sucker believes it to be true -- and that's worth recording. Also censorship is, in a way, a continual process on a wiki. We continuously censor and edit each others work. If you can't handle that, you will find the Wikipedia to be a very frustrating place. But you're a grown-up, I'm sure that you'll adapt. Cheers Derek Ross
Thank you all for writing in my personal space. I am attempting to write in NPOV, but I'm concerned because I think I'm writing in a method which is only depicting facts, but appearantly you believe it is barely readable, obviously a POV statement. Don't be a hypocrit, but if you do have some method that would help me write in a better method, more NPOV, then a couple examples would be more than welcome. Thank you again my children. Nostrum02:50 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You're welcome, Grandpa. For examples and method take a look at Wikipedia:NPOV where you will find helpful information. -- Derek Ross
I have mentioned your case near the top of problem users -- I wish you luck in dealing with what I consider unacceptable behaviour on the part of others. Pizza Puzzle
Your text is unreadable, your information is selective, your interpretation is wrong and your knowledge of the topic is non-existent. Since when are Mormons catholics? Since when are Born Again Christians called New Born Christians? And they sure as hell aren't catholics and would take high offence at you suggesting that they are. If that POV stuff is put in again it will be deleted, and continue to be deleted. If you are going to write about a topic, please pick one you know something about because you clearly know very very very little about catholicism and this is an encyclopædic article on the topic, not the National Enquirer. FearÉIREANN 06:32 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not you wrote the deeply flawed content at question, you've been restoring it. For reasons for the revert and protection of the page, I refer to the comments already posted on the Catholicism talk page. 172
The forum for discussion is the talk page, not the article. Your assertion that you haven't had a fair hearing is also groundless. The text that you've been posting has received a great deal of attention. 172
Due to all the problems with the text at question that have been identified, please post the portions that you want to have added on a talk page. They will be reviewed promptly by those who have actively contributed content to Catholicism-related topics and topics pertaining to the sex abuse scandal. If they meet encyclopedic standards, a place will be found for them. 172
I thought you might be interested in the discussion going on recently on the mailing list. Specifically, I thought you might be interested in this post. I suggest you read over the other recently written posts about you, and maybe even respond to some. You can sign-up for the mailing list here. You can find mailing list info here. MB 23:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Could you please fix the spelling errors on your personal user page if you expect us to take you seriously? clarka 8 August 2003
Please do not place comments in articles - it makes them look amateurish. Direct future comments to talk pages or, if you must, as HTML comments in the wikitext. --mav 10:13, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi Matt. It's good to see you're back. I figured you had left for good. I hope that you don't get discouraged by peoples bad attitude towards you. It seems as though people have labeled you a vandal b/c of your personal POV. Just try and step back and make sure you aren't making POV edits. If you are, someone will bring it up, and you can discuss it. I would like to make it clear that not all of us see you as a vandal. I completely understand what it is like to be a newbie, and make mistakes. Although you have jumped into things a bit too quickly. I might suggest that you take some extra time to look around. Check out some community pages, and tutorials. Below is a list of articles you may be interested, or ariticles that might help you out:
Rachel Corrie (she was interested in resistance techniques too)
Wikipedia:Village pump (very useful)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
Wikipedia:Auto-biography
Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
Wikipedia:WikiMoney
Wikipedia:Press coverage
Wikipedia:Utilities
Wikipedia:Standard user greeting
Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter
Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content
m:International logo contest (contest going on at the meta).
I hope you enjoy these links. Good luck, feel free to ask me anything. マイカル (MB) 19:34, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Your whiteboard project.
May I humbly suggest that what you are doing is just as counterproductive as the /ban page that was put on you. You can show character by not going through with it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:16, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] On foolishness and the display of it.
Let me be very precise here. You look much more foolish than 172 at this moment. Read the sentence a few times with some thought.
The thing is that a certain amount of inexperience is expected of any new prospective contributor. If you have experienced resistance that seems excessive, the precise reason for that is that you have evinced greater, and more persistent "foolishness" than many other newcomers. You should think about that.
Really think about it.
I can't really help you much more beyond that at this point. You have to do much of the brainwork yourself here to turn things around. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
P.S. 172 SHOULD KNOW BETTER, BUT YOU SHOULD LEARN.
It would be in your best interest to blank User:Nostrum/White_board. The relevent information has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_de-adminship. マイカル (MB) 14:36, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
Please read my request on User talk:Nostrum/ban. マイカル (MB) 23:48, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
I just now saw the message that you placed on my user page (user talk works best). A: No problem. All newbies have a bit of trouble at first (I know I did!). Some simply have more trouble than others because they have different ideas on what Wikipedia is and and how it should be used. Aside: Hm. What is it about Wikipedia that attracts a disproportionately large number of gay people? You might find this list interesting: m:Queer Wikipedians. BTW, I hope you and 172 can get along. --mav 10:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know Matt, I had an idea of 2 articles I think you would enjoy working on. They have yet to be created, so I think it would be a good experience for you to start them (since you have shown interest in them). First Data manipulation, second Resistance techniques. A resource I found that might help with Data manipulation is http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk. Best of luck. Mike, マイカル 18:15, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you very much 172. I am extremely elated that we could work this out. I promise this is the mark of a great beginning to a long friendship.Nostrum 00:09, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Two things: 1. It is generally most effective to respond to people on their talk pages. 2. I found this page for you Non-violent resistance. Hope it helps. マイカル 20:00, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
Wow, you are probably the stupidest member ever to join this site. Funny how you claim to love people yet you criticize catholicism and you called people who are stuck up retards. I'm glad you don't edit anymore because nothing you say has a spark of intelligence, you know nothing about classes of people, and you think gay sex is natural while straight sex which leads to the continuation of the human race is not natural. Take your stupid views and shove them up your ass, you faggot!
