How Do You Report Encyclopedia Trolls

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by lixluke, Mar 13, 2007.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    The dumbass is you. I explained clearly that the attack on the definition is a bureaucratic way of avoiding the issue.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,432
    Why don't you point out specifically what was inaccurate, and allow them to defend the inclusion of that information?
    One side saying over and over that it is true, and the other saying over and over that it is not, gets no one anywhere.

    What, exactly, is untrue?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    one_raven, we provided 27 references to that information!
     
  8. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,432
    I know you did.
    I'd like him to tell us what he thinks is untrue.
     
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Discontinue repeating yourself about the references we already went over it. Your intentions were to troll and vandalize a legitimate article, and your troll behavior up until now.


    Here is the accurate article:
    Lixluke is a member of Sciforums. Lixluke joined Sciforums in July, 2002 as cool skill. He changed his handle to lixluke in 2006.
     
  10. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    So, in other words, you can't disprove anything we said, so instead you whine like a little child. Case clear.
     
  11. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I am not obliged to disprove anything that you have not proven to be true. I have already stated why those citations do not make it true. Learn how to read. And I posted how the article is supposed to look that you keep changing into your vandalized version.

    CASE CLEAR
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
     
  12. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    You dont "fix it up", you deleted everything. Including whats true. If you only got rid of false info then that would be understandable, but THE REFERENCES ARE VALID. You HAVE FAILED to show otherwise.
     
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    No they are not. You have not proven them to be valid.
    The whole article is a farce anyway, and nobody expects them to be accurate. Your intetions are to troll and to harass. Not to provide accurate information.
     
  14. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Yes we have, we used your very own posts to show it.
     
  15. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    It is plain and simply clear that your intentions are to troll, and to put trash in the article about me. It is because you are trash. It is because you are obnxious assholes with no regard for other members. You are vandals and trolls.

    You did not show it in any articles. I can claim that you said anything, and because I put a citation on it to a random thing you said, it makes it accurate? Get real.
     
  16. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Nickelodeon likes to dangle babies out of a window. (1)

    There look. It's a citation. It's to a random article, but who cares. As long as a citation is there, it must be true.


    The fact is, trolls vandalizing my articles will also get vandalized by me. I never vandalize people's articles unless they do it to me first. The fact is that you troll started to vandalize my article first. I have already proven that here.
     
  17. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,432
    Actually, you are.
    You are the one who is claiming libel, the onus is on you to support that assertion.

    No you didn't.
    You simply cliamed it was done with malicious intent - that does nto make untrue at all.
    You are saying, "That is not a nice thing to do, so that means it it a lie."
    Do you not see how absurd that is?

    What, specifically, is untrue?
     
  18. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Learn how to read before you go about yapping your stupidity.


     
  19. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Not only did we make a claim that "you said something", we linked directly to every post where you actually SAID it. You were your own witness! And the sheer number of instances where you did behave in such manner is exactly why it ended up in the article in the first place! If it were only a one-off, it would be easy to forget, but your style is quite clear.
     
  20. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    No you did not. You claimed that I said something, and linked it to somewhere I never even said it. You are lying, and the only reason is that you are trolling. I have already proven it, and you continue to claim that you were not trolling or vandalizing.
     
  21. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    The baby dangling? Thats wasnt mine. But if that one example was wrong, then you should have ONLY removed that one, not the whole lot.
     
  22. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I removed the whole lot because the entire thing was meant as a troll article. Whether ther was accurate info on there or not, I do not have any intention to nitpick through a troll artricle that I have already proven to be created with malicious intent. WTF are you trying to argue anyway? What is your point? That I should allow you trolls to continue to post malicious articles about me? No thank you.
     
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    That was referenced properly. It merely needed a small edit maybe.
    this was the reference
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64018

    see for instance this post in that thread:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322900&postcount=10

    Instead of:
    Cool skill thinks it's fine and dandy to dangle babies over balconies.

    It could have said

    Cool skill thinks it's fine and dandy to dangle babies over balconies since it says nothing about the character of the person who does so (ref from above).
     

Share This Page