You are the on who kept revising my article to the vandalized version when I kept putting it back to normal, then proceed to act innocent as if your version is not a total farce vandalization of my article.
Who's the dick now?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Do You Report Encyclopedia Trolls
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Who's the dick now?
Actually several of us did, not just me, becasue we all knew the article was broadly true.You are the on who kept revising my article to the vandalized version when I kept putting it back to normal, then proceed to act innocent as if your version is not a total farce vandalization of my article.
Who's the dick now?
Link.
I found a bunch of facts here:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/The_Devil_Inside
The Devil Inside is a follower of Judaism.
The Devil Inside hates extremism of all kinds.
The Devil Inside is an expatriate citizen of the U.S.A., currently residing in Belgium.
The Devil Inside has never won a match of Medieval Total War from spuriousmonkey. No-one knows why, but some have suggested that it may have something to do with the sexual orientation of his generals.
The Devil Inside was the #3 ranked pokemon gameboy player in the world in 1999-2000, ranked by pojo magazine.
The Devil Inside has proven himself flame retardant. [1]
Or merely retarded. Either way.
Blind people call him handsome, because he smells gay like David Hasselhoff.
The Devil Inside doesn't drink his own pee. He drinks strangers' pee. But not from the tap (not often, anyway).
The Devil Inside is een zotte lambik.
After exploratory surgery, doctors confirmed that The Devil Inside indeed has a devil inside.
The Devil Inside hates us guys[2].
The Devil Inside likes kicking puppies, and debating retards before eating them [3].
2 of them are facts. figure out which 2 are, and you get a prize.
you are a whiney bitch, thats all there is to it.
A broadly true article is not the same as an accurate and correct article. My article revision was simply that I am a member. It was 2 lines and completely true and legitimate. And all of the trolls were repeatedly taking off the legitimate article, and putting in the "broadly true" article which just happened to include malicious content about me.
As you notice, I do not go around doing that to other people for no reason. I do not go around vandalizing people's articles at random. Broadly true or not, it was illegitimate, and continueing to impose it over my legitimate revision is completely obnoxious and uncalled for.
As you notice, I do not go around doing that to other people for no reason. I do not go around vandalizing people's articles at random. Broadly true or not, it was illegitimate, and continueing to impose it over my legitimate revision is completely obnoxious and uncalled for.
A broadly true article is not the same as an accurate and correct article. My article revision was simply that I am a member. It was 2 lines and completely true and legitimate. And all of the trolls were repeatedly taking off the legitimate article, and putting in the "broadly true" article which just happened to include malicious content about me.
As you notice, I do not go around doing that to other people for no reason. I do not go around vandalizing people's articles at random. Broadly true or not, it was illegitimate, and continueing to impose it over my legitimate revision is completely obnoxious and uncalled for.
ill direct you to what you have done to others' pages.
'nuff said.
What is your point? The only reason I did it is because they started with me first. I never trolled any page that was not some asshole that was vandalizing my aricle.ill direct you to what you have done to others' pages.
'nuff said.
No, but its mostly true. And you took out the true bits along with whatever else.A broadly true article is not the same as an accurate and correct article.
I took out the entire trash vandalized article that was not mostly true. It was full of trash, and inconsistent citations leading to posts taken out of connotation.No, but its mostly true. And you took out the true bits along with whatever else.
You took out an entirely legitimate article for no reason, and replaced it with the vandalized version. TOTAL TROLL BEHAVIOR. Then repeatedly did it over and over and over again.
If you are full of trash then of course anything descriptive written about you will reflect that.
I'll make a note of that about yourself.If you are full of trash then of course anything descriptive written about you will reflect that.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
Those are all legitimate arguments, but I guess you do not know how to read correctly.Why do you continue to make an ass out of yourself?
You mean Bells and Baron? Yes all bollocks.More bollocks.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
Meh, just ban him, we don't have to keep that idiot around here.
He contributes nothing to Sciforums, except is being rude to everyone.
nor do i.