How Do You Report Encyclopedia Trolls
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
its tasty.
i was thinking along the lines of marilyn manson or alice cooper.
hannibel lecter wouldn't be bad either, that way i could keep you guys in line.
i can't believe it, i spilled a whole cup of coffee in my keyboard.
ran to the kitchen and got a whole roll of paper towels, came back, turned my keyboard upside down and shook all the coffee out of it, mopped up the mess with the towels, AND IT STILL WORKS !
it's an old packard bell keyboard.
Hmm. Somebody was actually clever enough to solve it to an extent.
Close, but not exactly the correct answer.
You might solve it if you continue to try, but it is doubtful.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Talk:Lixluke
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Talk:Lixluke
Why are you still trolling other people profiles then?
I never vandalized or trolled anybody that did not start harassing me first. You and all you other a--holes are the ones that started it, and complain when I do it back to your. I have no reason or desire to troll anybody's article that did not attack me first. You obnoxious trolls especially avatar were vanalzing my article over and over and over before the amin locked it.
You people are f---ing a--holes, and I hope you are aware of that. Everytime I tried to fix my article you vandalized it again. Then stay stupid shit like:
"lixluke is vandalizing his article har har har" knowing full well that I am cleaning up your troll flames. You vandalize my article first, and complain when I do the same thing to you. F--K YOU YOU F--ING TOTAL A--HOLES.
You people are f---ing a--holes, and I hope you are aware of that. Everytime I tried to fix my article you vandalized it again. Then stay stupid shit like:
"lixluke is vandalizing his article har har har" knowing full well that I am cleaning up your troll flames. You vandalize my article first, and complain when I do the same thing to you. F--K YOU YOU F--ING TOTAL A--HOLES.
We didnt't "vandalise" the article, EVERYTHING stated on there was fully referenced by your own posts. Don't like it? Tough shit, its' history, its based on what YOU yourself wrote.
As a wiki, its not "your" article, its an article about you. Believe it or not, you have a tendancy to shout "troll! irrelevant!" etc at anyone who disagrees with you. We found numerous examples in short space of time.
In fact, you're proving right now how true all of that was.
As a wiki, its not "your" article, its an article about you. Believe it or not, you have a tendancy to shout "troll! irrelevant!" etc at anyone who disagrees with you. We found numerous examples in short space of time.
In fact, you're proving right now how true all of that was.
Last edited:
You can see the old article here: http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7030
I will make a html copy of it and redistribute freely. Sciforums members should know that information.
Note that the article is well referenced and accurate, there is no insulting or flaming in telling the truth.
It's not our fault Cool Skill is so childish.
I will make a html copy of it and redistribute freely. Sciforums members should know that information.
Note that the article is well referenced and accurate, there is no insulting or flaming in telling the truth.
It's not our fault Cool Skill is so childish.
Last edited:
No I do not. Something that is irrelevant simply has no relevance. A troll is simply a troll. This is regardless to whether anybody agrees with me or not. Fact is fact, and I spell it out ass such without regard to whether I am in agreement with a statement.
Vandalization is about intent. Doctor up all the references you want to justify it as innocent, but the intent is still there to flame me with false trash about me. Whether it is vandalization or an innocent mistake is about intent.
Is the user's intent to provide accurate info in my article, or is the user's intent to troll me and make a joke out of my article.
Avatar follows me around trolling me.
You on the other hand make some reasonable grammar adjustments sometimes, and other times jumping in with the other trolls even admitting that you're trolling and vandalzing.
The intent is not to provide accurate info about CS. The intent is to harass CS for no reason, by creating a farce of an article about me. The everytime I fix it, you trolls continue to change it back showing you hae no regard for other members.
Why do you imagine you know my intentions?
I'm a rational idealist, and I don't like when the truth is put under the cover if it's inconvenient.
The article has 27 references, more than many others, and it's providing accurate info.
If we wanted we could even insert your real name and other info, but, as you see, we don't do that.
I'm a rational idealist, and I don't like when the truth is put under the cover if it's inconvenient.
The article has 27 references, more than many others, and it's providing accurate info.
If we wanted we could even insert your real name and other info, but, as you see, we don't do that.
If your intentions were to provide accurate information, you stop vandalizing my article. Every single time I fix it up, you change it right away with no consideration.
As I stated, in order to provide accurate information about a subject, the subject must be interviewed. You info on there was innacurate. Your reference me calling people a troll that are trolls, and calling irrelevant arguments irrrelevant. Then claim that I was calling arguments irrelevant or trolls that I disagree with when I never claimed to disagree with anything. Of course you are to illiterate to know how to interpret it.
You never stated that the reason I call it irrelevant is because it actually is irrelevant. You never state that the reason I call an indvidual a troll is because they are actually trolling. You probably don't know the real definition of a troll. Intead you claim that I am calling it irrelevant or because I disagree with it even after I have always made it exceptionally clear that anything that I call irrelevant is something that has nothing to do with the discussion or cannot support any point within a discussion.
If your intention was not to vandalize it, you would have discontinued your trolling activities. Somebody who's intent is not to vandalize actually interviews the subject to get accurate info directly from the subject, and adjust the article in a respectful manner. Not repeatedly over and over again putting up their own fuck-trash about the subject in an obsessive trollish manner knowing full well the subject disagrees with it, and TOTALLY not giving a crap with no consideration.
As I stated, in order to provide accurate information about a subject, the subject must be interviewed. You info on there was innacurate. Your reference me calling people a troll that are trolls, and calling irrelevant arguments irrrelevant. Then claim that I was calling arguments irrelevant or trolls that I disagree with when I never claimed to disagree with anything. Of course you are to illiterate to know how to interpret it.
You never stated that the reason I call it irrelevant is because it actually is irrelevant. You never state that the reason I call an indvidual a troll is because they are actually trolling. You probably don't know the real definition of a troll. Intead you claim that I am calling it irrelevant or because I disagree with it even after I have always made it exceptionally clear that anything that I call irrelevant is something that has nothing to do with the discussion or cannot support any point within a discussion.
If your intention was not to vandalize it, you would have discontinued your trolling activities. Somebody who's intent is not to vandalize actually interviews the subject to get accurate info directly from the subject, and adjust the article in a respectful manner. Not repeatedly over and over again putting up their own fuck-trash about the subject in an obsessive trollish manner knowing full well the subject disagrees with it, and TOTALLY not giving a crap with no consideration.
Are you illiterate?
If your intentions were to provide accurate information, you stop vandalizing my article. Every single time I fix it up, you change it right away with no consideration.
As I stated, in order to provide accurate information about a subject, the subject must be interviewed. You info on there was innacurate. Your reference me calling people a troll that are trolls, and calling irrelevant arguments irrrelevant. Then claim that I was calling arguments irrelevant or trolls that I disagree with when I never claimed to disagree with anything. Of course you are to illiterate to know how to interpret it.
You never stated that the reason I call it irrelevant is because it actually is irrelevant. You never state that the reason I call an indvidual a troll is because they are actually trolling. You probably don't know the real definition of a troll. Intead you claim that I am calling it irrelevant or because I disagree with it even after I have always made it exceptionally clear that anything that I call irrelevant is something that has nothing to do with the discussion or cannot support any point within a discussion.
If your intention was not to vandalize it, you would have discontinued your trolling activities. Somebody who's intent is not to vandalize actually interviews the subject to get accurate info directly from the subject, and adjust the article in a respectful manner. Not repeatedly over and over again putting up their own fuck-trash about the subject in an obsessive trollish manner knowing full well the subject disagrees with it, and TOTALLY not giving a crap with no consideration.
people can access the references to the above article and judge for themselves.
i remember a thread called "US atrocties" or somesuch where the definition for terrorism came up. i cited, and referenced, the UN resolution stating it had no single agreed upon definition. you (lixluke) told me a number of times in that thread that i can't change the definition. i kept telling you that i wasn't changing it and there is no single definition but you continued to insist i was changing the definition of terrorism.
you're a real dumbass lixluke AKA coolskill AKA 2 year old crybaby.
ps
stop drinking your pee.
OK and? I'm not sure if you are interpreting my english correctly, but I never once said that people should not be able to edit it. This has no relevance whatsoever to anything I am saying. My entire post is about how people should not be vandalizing it.
You saw the subject fix it to a reasonable format. Yet every single time over and over without consideration, you edited the article in order to insert the vandalized version like the troll that you are. You are a troll. You repeatedly kept inserting the vandalize version in everytime I edited it.
Reasonable editing an article is not the same thing as trolling. What you were doing is trolling and vandalism. Your inetntions were not to provide accurate info, but to troll.
Again, learn how to read.
If your intentions were to provide accurate information, you stop vandalizing my article. Every single time I fix it up, you change it right away with no consideration.
If your intention was not to vandalize it, you would have discontinued your trolling activities. Somebody who's intent is not to vandalize actually interviews the subject to get accurate info directly from the subject, and adjust the article in a respectful manner. Not repeatedly over and over again putting up their own fuck-trash about the subject in an obsessive trollish manner knowing full well the subject disagrees with it, and TOTALLY not giving a crap with no consideration.
People canot simply judge for themselves. People look up articles in order to get information about a subject. When these trolls put up their trash about me, it is misleading the subject. Their intent is to troll. Their intent is to make a farce out of my article. Their intent is not to put accurate information on the article about me, but to make a farce out of my article because they are trolls who find it amusing to do so.
If their intent was to put accurate information about me, they could have interviewed me. They could have stopped reinserting their farce articles after I removed them.