The assholes Redarmy11 and Nickelodeon keep changing my article on the encyclopedia page.
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Cool_skill

The article simply says:
A member of sciforums that had their screen name changed to lixluke.


These assholes keep changing it to say that I am ballerina and calling me communist and other flames.

I didn't know you were cool skill.

Do not incur his wrath (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Talk:Cool_skill)!

No we didn't. Your post, as usual, is factually inaccurate.

I see he vandalised my profile (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Nickelodeon_%28SciForums_member%29). And do I care?

Both redarmy11 and Nickelodeon keep trolling the encyclopedia.

This is Nickelodeon's comments:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Nickelodeon_%28SciForums_member%29


Why are they not getting banned from posting in the encyclopedia?

This is Nickelodeon's comments:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Nickelodeon_%28SciForums_member%29

Because thats my own fucking profile you numbnut! You edited it! LOL

Those are YOUR fucking comments on MY profile, ass!

Yes edited it, and posted that you are a troll.
Both of you are trolling the encyclopedia putting up flames and false info about me in my article. TROLLS.

Yes edited it, and posted that you are a troll.

...then report yourself, TROLL!

Which bits are false, cool skill?

I'm shocked and appalled to hear that the biog may not be completely factually accurate. Believe me, my team and I will do our utmost to erase from history any misrepresentations that are brought to our attention.

Yours,

redarmy11, on behalf of the Science Encyclopedia Unofficial Administration Team.

I am not trolling. I edited my own article about me correctly, and you continue to change it back to your flame article over and over. Therefore, you are a troll, and I posted that you are a troll on your article.

Thanks, I'll keep it for prosperity. TROLL

Dear Mr. cool skill,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Science Encyclopedia Unofficial Administration Team at Sciforums.com, in response to a complaint received from yourself on Tuesday 13 March 2007.

In the aforementioned complaint you raise the possibility that our biography of you may contain some factual inaccuracies. I am writing to you now and asking you to provide specific details regarding which aspects of our biography of you may be less than 100% accurate. My team and I take great pride in the diligence with which we research our subjects, and are discomforted by the thought that, on this occasion, we may have allowed some factual errors to 'slip through the net'.

A previous communication asking that you contact us has thus far received no response. I hope this letter finds you well and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours Faithfully,

redarmy11,

on behalf of the Sciforums Science Encyclopedia Unofficial Administration Team.

Actually, I agree with a lot that Nick has said..


" * Shouting IRRELEVANT! TROLL! at anyone who even slightly disagrees with him."

*Cough*




Why does Nickelodeon get credit for everything? He's a idoit.

*Sneez*




I don't know... but it's "he's AN idiot."

*Burp*




He's not. He's a idoit.

*vomit*



Oh, well then... carry on ol' chap!

Dear Lixluke,

my attention has been brought to a serious case of vandalism. As the official vandalism repellent of the unofficial encyclopedia team I immediately launched an investigation.

It seems that someone has registered under the name of Lixluke and constantly is vandalizing the cool skill page.

Accordingly I have acted immediately and reverted the page back to its original content in my role as unofficial vandalism repellent.

I'm sorry if the lixluke on the encyclopedia has caused you any discomfort.

regards,

spuriousmonkey

vandalism repellent/moustache sharpener
Unofficial encyclopedia team

james R.,
how does it feel to babysit a pack of 2 year olds?

It's good practice for when he gets a real 2 year old.

as the unofficial seriousness evaluator slash porn link editor i rule that lixluke AKA coolskill is out of order for bringing up such a mundane item as someone editing his wiki.

you are ou45t 74
¨'i0

my one year old typed half of that.

your last transmission was garbled due to stealth bomber interference.

my one year old typed half of that.
oops, correction, your last transmission was garbled due to interference from the head honcho.

Dear Mr. cool skill,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Science Encyclopedia Unofficial Administration Team at Sciforums.com, in response to a complaint received from yourself on Tuesday 13 March 2007.

In the aforementioned complaint you raise the possibility that our biography of you may contain some factual inaccuracies. I am writing to you now and asking you to provide specific details regarding which aspects of our biography of you may be less than 100% accurate. My team and I take great pride in the diligence with which we research our subjects, and are discomforted by the thought that, on this occasion, we may have allowed some factual errors to 'slip through the net'.

A previous communication asking that you contact us has thus far received no response. I hope this letter finds you well and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours Faithfully,

redarmy11,

on behalf of the Sciforums Science Encyclopedia Unofficial Administration Team.
You assholes keep putting flames in my article.
If you would like to create a thorough legitimate article, try interviewing the subject before you start throwing flames and lies. Furthermore, it is up to the subject what is considered legitimate for his article.

You assholes keep putting flames in my article.
If you would like to create a thorough legitimate article, try interviewing the subject before you start throwing flames and lies. Furthermore, it is up to the subject what is considered legitimate for his article.

youve been under my radar so far.
this thread was a baaaaaad idea.

????

Furthermore, it is up to the subject what is considered legitimate for his article.

No it is not. That is what the userpage is for.

It is unethical for the subject to delete the work of others on the proper page dealing with the subject.

If there is a case of injustice it will be dealt with by other users eventually.

If there is a case of injustice it will be dealt with by other users eventually.

like me.

excellent.

excellent.

like your mama.

I know.

So how do you report Encyclopedia Trolls?

youve been under my radar so far.
this thread was a baaaaaad idea.

????
you done earned the wrath of the infamous TDI.
you think your wiki page is screwed up now? heh. heh. heh

TDI
will you stop telling everyone i drink my pee? that was supposed to be a secret ya know.

you done earned the wrath of the infamous TDI.
you think your wiki page is screwed up now? heh. heh. heh

TDI
will you stop telling everyone i drink my pee? that was supposed to be a secret ya know.

no way. it isnt that much of a secret, if i knew.

no way. it isnt that much of a secret, if i knew.
keep it up and i'll post those pictures from that night you was drunk on your ass.

let's see if he'll take the bait. he, he, he.

keep it up and i'll post those pictures from that night you was drunk on your ass.

let's see if he'll take the bait. he, he, he.

bring it on, terrorist.

lixluke,

I'm curious why you changed your name.
I'm also curous about who Luke is, and why you lick him.

bring it on, terrorist.
just a sec, i gotta photoshop, er, find them.

just a sec, i gotta photoshop, er, find them.

fair enough.
death to leopold!!

lixluke,

I'm curious why you changed your name.
I'm also curous about who Luke is, and why you lick him.

No, he likes luke.

No, he likes luke.

cant it be both?

fair enough.

TDI drunk on the couch:
http://xs313.xs.to/xs313/07113/im1a1ages.jpg

TDI at mardi gras:
http://xs313.xs.to/xs313/07113/im1ages2.jpg

TDI drunk at work:
http://xs313.xs.to/xs313/07113/im1ages1.jpg

all very sexy.

Oh wait, I'll do this one:
lixluke,

I'm curious why you changed your name.
He was getting harrassed, either by some stupid troll crab from another site, or stalked by someone in real life - can't remember now. Someone or something was tracking his movements in either cyberspace or the meatspace with the intention of doing very, very bad things to him.
I'm also curous about who Luke is, and why you lick him.
Are you ready? Someone else pointed this out to me a few weeks back. It's soooo clever. We need to dispense with the final letter of his name to make things crystal clear though:


L-I-X-L-U-K
<----------

---------->
K-U-L-X-I-L


Do you see? How clever's that!!!

For posterity and all to see the true face of Cool Skill:

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9741/coolskillau1.jpg

I like what he did to the spuriousmonkey page:

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Spuriousmonkey&oldid=6633

Do you see? How clever's that!!!

Now, that takes some Kewl Skiilz. :rolleyes:

We should update the article with that information.

I'm still not sure he doesn't lick some guy named Luke.
Maybe that's where he gets the money to pay for his internet access.

I'm still not sure he doesn't lick some guy named Luke.
Maybe that's where he gets the money to pay for his internet access.
We could put that in a 'unconfirmed rumours' section.

He licks ass.

We could put that in a 'unconfirmed rumours' section.
Along with the, um.. never mind.



Can you take that picture down? The only lawyer I can afford advertises his services on cereal boxes.

You think cool skill is going to pay a lawyer to sue us? Whats he going to pay him with? Download one off torrent?

Whats he going to pay him with?
That depends whether there's any truth in the...

Never mind.

I could delete the link to it, but why do you think he is going to sue you, and for what exactly?
Do you really want me to do that?

Trolling.

Trolling is nothing you can go to court with.

And besides I don't think theres anything that's wrong with the article, it's pretty accurate.

its tasty.

as the unofficial seriousness evaluator slash porn link editor i say go for it.

and when do i get my secretary?

We are currently in the process of making Cool Skill your secretary.
In a fancy skirt, of course.

We are currently in the process of making Cool Skill your secretary.
In a fancy skirt, of course.
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 ! :cool:

it's an old packard bell keyboard.

Are you ready? Someone else pointed this out to me a few weeks back. It's soooo clever. We need to dispense with the final letter of his name to make things crystal clear though:


L-I-X-L-U-K
<----------

---------->
K-U-L-X-I-L

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Would you prefer if we publish information "directly from the subject"?
hint: Your date of birth is 12/14/76, place of birth Quezon City, Philippines, Home number: ********

Would you prefer if we publish information "directly from the subject"?
hint: Your date of birth is 12/14/76, place of birth Quezon City, Philippines, Home number: ********
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.

Welcome to SciWiki!
the encyclopedia for SciForums that anyone can edit

It's not your article, it's an article about you that anyone should be able to edit.

And, by the way, I didn't write that article in the first place.

You can see the old article here: http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7030

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.

It's not your article, it's an article about you that anyone should be able to edit.
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 can access the references to the above article and judge for themselves.
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.

you're a real dumbass lixluke AKA coolskill AKA 2 year old crybaby.
The dumbass is you. I explained clearly that the attack on the definition is a bureaucratic way of avoiding the issue.

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?

See for yourself:

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7030

one_raven, we provided 27 references to that information!

I know you did.
I'd like him to tell us what he thinks is untrue.

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.

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. Your 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.


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.

So, in other words, you can't disprove anything we said, so instead you whine like a little child. Case clear.

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

No they are not. You have not proven them to be valid.
Yes we have, we used your very own posts to show it.

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.

Nickelodeon likes to dangle babies out of a window. (1 (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58844))

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.

I am not obliged to disprove anything that you have not proven to be true.
Actually, you are.
You are the one who is claiming libel, the onus is on you to support that assertion.

I have already stated why those citations do not make it true.
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?

Actually, you are.
No you didn't.
You simply cliamed it was done with malicious intent - that does nto make untrue at all.
Learn how to read before you go about yapping your stupidity.


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. Your 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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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).

What is your point?
That the article was largely true.

Learn how to read before you go about yapping your stupidity.
You're a moron and you're full of shit.

First of all...
If there is direct evidence that someone said something, and later they say, "You are lying. I never said that. Ask ME and I'll tell you the truth." who are you going to believe?

Secondly...
An article ABOUT you doesn't have to be written BY you, nor does the person have to interview you.
How many times have you shared your opinion about someone (famous or not) based on your opinoon of them and other sources without interviewing them? If you say never, you are a damned liar.

Finally...
Talking about intentions and honesty, you are just pissed off and being your typical childish self, because you want to be able to call anyone a jackass and asshole all you want, but when someone deals you back some of the same cards, you blow up and make a big stink about it.

They based the article on what you said yourself, they don't have to interview you.
And, as was said before, it was an article about you, not YOUR article - you don't own it.

Grow up, or go cry to your mommy. Your shit doesn't fly here.

I am not obliged to disprove anything that you have not proven to be true.
the references are in the article avatar posted, all one has to do is look them up.

but since you feel like pressing the point:
there isn't a single agreed upon definition of terrorism.
Who cares?
Discontinue trying to make terrosim ambigous. It has been tried before to no avail.
2. first time in history where people were given legal rights to property.
By the way, people do not have legal rights to property.
Type Definitions of Terrorism into google, and i'll bet you will find over 100 different definitions...
Irrelevant. Discontinue using fallacies.

referenced thread:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59712

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).
I would like you to show me a reference in which I state this.
NOTE: Do not use completely random references in which I never state that it is OK to dangle babies off of the balcon. Show me exactly where I said that doing so is OK, fine, and dandy.

That the article was largely true.
No it was not. Either way it was a troll article, and desreved to be fried. Even if there was a large amount of accurate info on there, the article was created by trolls for trolls. You will not see me sitting there, and allowing it without massive retaliation on those assholes. I do not go around vandalizing random articles, and I will not stand for a bunch of jackasses vandalizing mine. I will delete the entire article if it is a trash article vandalization, and attack the vandals as well. They can all go to hell.

I would like you to show me a reference in which I state this.
NOTE: Do not use completely random references in which I never state that it is OK to dangle babies off of the balcon. Show me exactly where I said that doing so is OK, fine, and dandy.

See post 100. Second link.

An article ABOUT you doesn't have to be written BY you, nor does the person have to interview you.
I never said an article has to be written by me. Cite where I said that, or stop twisting what I am saying.
I have proven that the article about me was written with clear malicious intent. Therefore, I do not sit there and make adjustments to it. It was a malicious article that I deleted because it was malicious. I then put an accurate article in it's place. Throw all the citations you want into it. A malicious article created by vandals will get deleted, and the vandals will get attacked.

Humm, don't worry, truth shall be know whether you like it or not.

Unfortunately for you you don't decide who is a vandal.

See post 100. Second link.
As stated, discontinue posting links to random articles in which I never make that statement. That is a ranom article you chose out of the forum, and the statement you accused me of has nothing to do with it.

He spurious loves dangling babies over balconies. Proof:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1325629#post1325629

Unfortunately for you you don't decide who is a vandal.
I have already proven that their intent was to troll. They admitted that they will continue to vandalize my article. The even cheered at being a troll as if they were proud of it. Get real.

As stated, discontinue posting links to random articles in which I never make that statement. That is a ranom article you chose out of the forum, and the statement you accused me of has nothing to do with it.

He spurious loves dangling babies over balconies. Proof:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1325629#post1325629

A thread where you claim MJ dangling babies off balconies says nothing about a person is a random thread????????????????????????????


:jawdrop:

You post lies about me, and use a completely random link to cite that I said something you claim I said. Of course, going to the link of the citations where I supposedly made the statement shows that the statement is nowhere to be found.

A thread where you claim MJ dangling babies off balconies says nothing about a person is a random thread????????????????????????????


:jawdrop:
Nothing is a random thread unless there is something for it to be referenced from that makes it random.

I can say anything about you, and cite it to any random thread that you posted in. Does that make it a real citation?
Spurious loves dangling babies over balconies. Proof:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63146

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322900&postcount=10
On the contrary, his dangling that child over that balcony says everything about him as a person.

On the contrary, no it does not. Try a rebuttal to the reasons I stated on why it does not instead of repeating that it is or get lost. As for the rest of your post, you are wasting your time here because I do not intend on reading it. The argument cannot go further.
As stated: Hanging a child over the balcony shows nothing about a person. It is simply a petty excuse to attack somebody.
You are bias. Instead of attacking somebody because of an action, you attack somebody, and create an invalid justification for doing so.

Well I was a skeptic but look there he did actually say that!

Here is the quote of the total random post where you claimed that I stated that dangling babies off of the balcony was OK, fine, dandy, whatever, etc.
On the contrary, no it does not. Try a rebuttal to the reasons I stated on why it does not instead of repeating that it is or get lost. As for the rest of your post, you are wasting your time here because I do not intend on reading it. The argument cannot go further.
As stated: Hanging a child over the balcony shows nothing about a person. It is simply a petty excuse to attack somebody.
You are bias. Instead of attacking somebody because of an action, you attack somebody, and create an invalid justification for doing so.

Well what do you know. Nowhere in that totally random article do I ever mention that dangling babies off of a balcony was fine and dandy. Either you need some thick glasses or do not know English if you can find me making that statement anywhere there.

Wow look at this post by spurious:
I didn't do the study. Don't bash the messenger. Although you people show a great obsession in defending the US and bashing the messengers of bad news.

There must be something psychologically wrong with you people according to yourselves.

Here is the thread: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63146

I even highlighted the statement in red of Spurious clearly stating that it is ok to dangle babies off of a balconey har har har.
There. I cited it, so it must be true. Har har har.

Then your partner can reply:
Well I was a skeptic but look there he did actually say that!




Hey look the emperor is wearing such beautiful clothes. Can't you see it? Can't you see? What great clothes the emperor is wearing. Har har har.

I stated that dangling babies off of the balcony was OK, fine, dandy, whatever, etc.


Geez why would you say such a thing?

Geez why would you say such a thing?
HAHAHAHA!!!!
That is a great example of how these trolls work to take statements out of context for their malicious intent of putting up false statements about me on the encyclopedia.

Look there is your quote that you can cite, and justify your lies about me:
I stated that dangling babies off of the balcony was OK, fine, dandy, whatever, etc.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1325781&postcount=118
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Actually we didnt "quote" you, we linked directly to YOUR POST! And only YOU can edit your own post (except the mods, of course)

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1325781&postcount=118
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Cool Skill now reminds of a hopelessly schizophrenic case, who laughs at everything he sees, even his own shit.
He's lost it.

Actually we didnt "quote" you, we linked directly to YOUR POST! And only YOU can edit your own post (except the mods, of course)
In other words you linked me to a post that you conveniently took out of context to put words into my mouth that I never said.

Here is a quote, and a reference link directly to my post:
"I stated that dangling babies off of the balcony was OK, fine, dandy, whatever, etc."
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1325781&postcount=118

Therefore, you trolls can claim that CS believes it is ok do dangle babies off of the balcony. After all, it was I who clearly made the statement, and there is the link citing it.

In other words you linked me to a post that you conveniently took out of context to put words into my mouth that I never said.
As I have already said, it wasn't mine. I stand by all the rest, it was true and we showed it here (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7025).

As I have already said, it wasn't mine. I stand by all the rest, it was true and we showed it here (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7025).
That is the garbage trashed version of my article.

This (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7025)one? That is the one we are talking about.

It's an article about you, not your article, dum dum.

This (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7025)one? That is the one we are talking about.
Yes. That one that you scummy trolls trashed.

I will post all of the true information here:

1.
Cool Skill joined Sciforums in July, 2002. He adopted "lixluke" as his handle in 2006.
[[Category:SciForums members]]

2.
The Name Change
The reasons behind his choice of new name are a mystery to some extent. Sciforums member pryzk went some way towards solving the puzzle when he pointed out the connection between cool skill and lixluke:

"He didn't completely drop his old username - just camouflaged it a bit:

cool skill => lliks looc => lixluke

So you can still ask what his "kul xil"s are." [1]

This connection was reiterated in the 'How do you report Encyclopedia troll' thread by redarmy11[2].

However, lixluke claims that, although close, this isn't the full story behind the name. [3]
You practically have the asnwer, but I will explain it clearly. Lixluke is not Cool Skill spelled backwards, but Cool Skill pronounced backwards. Disregard the spelling, and verbalize the pronounciation.

3.
SKILLS

*Cool Skill has never lead anybody to certain death. One of his skills is leading a tribe of 100,000 to great propsperity. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59698
(FUCK ANY TROLL THAT USES THIS CITATION TO CLAIM THAT MY SKILL IS LEADING THEM TO HORRIBLE AND CERTAIN DEATH.)

*Building design and city design.

*If Cool Skill calls somebody troll or claims a statement is irrelevant, it is not because he disagrees with it. It is because the person is a troll or the statement has no relevance to the point.
(FUCK ANY ASSHOLE THAT CLAIMS THAT THE REASON IS BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING.)

*Cool Skill is only racist against the rich oppressors.


4.
TRIVIA

*Cool Skill is the creator of scivillage.

*Cool Skill considers it unsafe to dangle babies over balcony banisters.

*Cool Skill's homepage will remain uncited until ready.

It's an article about you, not your article, dum dum.
Stop caviling syntax. I know it is not my article, and everybody knows that when I use the following syntax "my article", it is a common figure of speech as to imply an article about me. Just like if I had an article in any magazine. Everybody knows it was not written by me, but is about me. And everybody knows what I am talking about when I use the term "my article".

i gotta hand it to ya lix.
you take a lickin and keep on luxin.

anyway . . .
the articles in the wiki are fun and games with just enough seriousness to be entertaining. i raised hell about TDI saying i drank my pee. i figured what the hell we might win a trophy or something.

a word of advice lix, the more you whine and complain the more they will grease your axles. you gotta learn to roll with it.

Yes. That one that you scummy trolls trashed.

I will post all of the true information here:

1.
Cool Skill joined Sciforums in July, 2002. He adopted "lixluke" as his handle in 2006.
[[Category:SciForums members]]

2.

You practically have the asnwer, but I will explain it clearly. Lixluke is not Cool Skill spelled backwards, but Cool Skill pronounced backwards. Disregard the spelling, and verbalize the pronounciation.

3.
SKILLS

*Cool Skill has never lead anybody to certain death. One of his skills is leading a tribe of 100,000 to great propsperity. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59698
(FUCK ANY TROLL THAT USES THIS CITATION TO CLAIM THAT MY SKILL IS LEADING THEM TO HORRIBLE AND CERTAIN DEATH.)

*Building design and city design.

*If Cool Skill calls somebody troll or claims a statement is irrelevant, it is not because he disagrees with it. It is because the person is a troll or the statement has no relevance to the point.
(FUCK ANY ASSHOLE THAT CLAIMS THAT THE RESAON IS BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING.)

*Cool Skill is only racist against the rich oppressors.


4.
TRIVIA

*Cool Skill is the creator of scivillage.

*Cool Skill considers it unsafe to dangle babies over balcony banisters.

*Cool Skill's homepage will remain uncited until ready.
I will now provide the link for people to edit in good faith. Editing an article in good faith is different from vandalizing it. It is about respecting the subject. It is NOT putting trash about the subject into the article that cannot be proven using citations to take things out of context. It should not to be used to make trash statements against the subject.

This is the link for the article as it currently stands:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Cool_Skill

i gotta hand it to ya lix.
you take a lickin and keep on luxin.

anyway . . .
the articles in the wiki are fun and games with just enough seriousness to be entertaining. i raised hell about TDI saying i drank my pee. i figured what the hell we might win a trophy or something.

a word of advice lix, the more you whine and complain the more they will grease your axles. you gotta learn to roll with it.
I will roll with stuff to a certain extent, but not out right lies claiming that I am using the terms "troll" and "irrelevant" for disagreeing. And claiming that I think it is ok to dangle babies off of a balcony.

With regards to that, I do claim that the majority of the parents make mistakes with their children that are just as dangerous or even worse.<-This is a statement I make that comes right out of my mouth.

"Irrellevant! Troll!"

Update his file Nick.

Why? Its an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. If he really thinks that bullshit is true let him put it up himself.

You mean I can edit yours?

Of course. Click on "edit" above the article.

Can I edit Saty's and Inverto's?

What do you think?

I will roll with stuff to a certain extent, but not out right lies claiming that I am using the terms "troll" and "irrelevant" for disagreeing. And claiming that I think it is ok to dangle babies off of a balcony.

With regards to that, I do claim that the majority of the parents make mistakes with their children that are just as dangerous or even worse.<-This is a statement I make that comes right out of my mouth.


I feel that you are trolling now.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1183719&postcount=64
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=856660&postcount=90
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1186043&postcount=95
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=834760&postcount=14
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=835144&postcount=22
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1154942&postcount=272
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1153222&postcount=151
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1152423&postcount=116
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1089115&postcount=71
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1091619&postcount=132
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1092396&postcount=143
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1215869&postcount=96
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=871211&postcount=63
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1087643&postcount=54
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1087621&postcount=53
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1086803&postcount=47
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1201544&postcount=574

And since you have been calling me a FUCKING ASSHOLE a dozen times today I am inclined to cut you no slack and abuse my moderator position.

Cool.

I feel that you are trolling now.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1183719&postcount=64
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=856660&postcount=90
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1186043&postcount=95
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=834760&postcount=14
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=835144&postcount=22
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1154942&postcount=272
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1153222&postcount=151
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1152423&postcount=116
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1089115&postcount=71
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1091619&postcount=132
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1092396&postcount=143
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1215869&postcount=96
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=871211&postcount=63
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1087643&postcount=54
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1087621&postcount=53
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1086803&postcount=47
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1201544&postcount=574

And since you have been calling me a FUCKING ASSHOLE a dozen times today I am inclined to cut you no slack and abuse my moderator position.
Don't cry about being called an asshole when you started it. I never did anything to you before, and you started with me for no reason.

Furthermore, taking a bunch of random posts out of context and calling me a troll is weak.

Furthermore still, you and other trolls are using the encyclopedia to flame me, and post malicious trash about me. That is what trolling is about. I have not posted any trash about you or any other member that did not do it to me first.

let him put it up himself.
I'm not putting anything up. All I am hoping is that all of you trolls will leave mealone, and stop putting your trash about me on the encyclopedia.

My goal is only to get the trolls are using the encyclopedia with malicious intent specifically to flame me. Creating articles with malicious intent about me. Hopefully the inferno will delete that irrelevant/troll article, and delete my name off of the troll list. And redirect all of the the references to me to my actual article instead of that flame article in the history that the trolls kept trying to impose during the revert war. I've already sent a message to inferno about all this crap against me. It needs to stop. You are wasing your time an my time posting trash about me for no reason when I never did that to anybody in the first place.

I'm not putting anything up.
What makes you think that was directed at you?

Furthermore, taking a bunch of random posts out of context and calling me a troll is weak.
Your posts, your "troll".

What makes you think that was directed at you?
What does this mean? Who are you referring to when you state "let him put it up himself"?
let him put it up himself.

What does this mean? Who are you referring to when you state "let him put it up himself"?
Was I responding to you?


And have you logged on as "Kul xil"? You were banned for a day by Plazma.

Was I responding to you?
Who cares? What is your point? Are you just yammering along incesently with no direction?
Out with it. Make a point or get lost.

Who cares? What is your point? Are you just yammering along incesently with no direction?
Out with it. Make a point or get lost.
Duh.

Sure thing. Either way, what I stated still applies:
I'm not putting anything up. All I am hoping is that all of you trolls will leave mealone, and stop putting your trash about me on the encyclopedia.

My goal is only to get the trolls are using the encyclopedia with malicious intent specifically to flame me. Creating articles with malicious intent about me. Hopefully the inferno will delete that irrelevant/troll article, and delete my name off of the troll list. And redirect all of the the references to me to my actual article instead of that flame article in the history that the trolls kept trying to impose during the revert war. I've already sent a message to inferno about all this crap against me. It needs to stop. You are wasing your time an my time posting trash about me for no reason when I never did that to anybody in the first place.

I'm not putting anything up. All I am hoping is that all of you trolls will leave mealone, and stop putting your trash about me on the encyclopedia.

My goal is only to get the trolls are using the encyclopedia with malicious intent specifically to flame me. Creating articles with malicious intent about me. Hopefully the inferno will delete that irrelevant/troll article, and delete my name off of the troll list. And redirect all of the the references to me to my actual article instead of that flame article in the history that the trolls kept trying to impose during the revert war. I've already sent a message to inferno about all this crap against me. It needs to stop. You are wasing your time an my time posting trash about me for no reason when I never did that to anybody in the first place.

all of this is irrelevant if you look at what you have done to other pages.

My goal is only to get the trolls are using the encyclopedia with malicious intent specifically to flame me.
You think we specially choose you? Get over your delusion.

You think we specially choose you? Get over your delusion.

there are only 2 facts on my wiki.
find them, lixluke....and you get a prize.

there are only 2 facts on my wiki.
find them, lixluke....and you get a prize.
Irellevant! Troll! I'll get you! grrrrrrr!

all of this is irrelevant if you look at what you have done to other pages.

Indeed. I fail to see how someone justifies rampant vandalism and capitalized insulting as a response to an article he disagrees with.

Off scale reaction.

Typical of trolls out of touch with reality.

Wait a sec, liksluke thinks we went on there SPECIFICALY to target him?

all of this is irrelevant if you look at what you have done to other pages.
How so? The only reason I did it in other pages is when some asshole flamed me for no reason first.
I never attacked a single person that did not flame my encyclopedia article first.

You think we specially choose you? Get over your delusion.
I don't give a crap who you trolls choose to harass. Either way, it is a violation.

there are only 2 facts on my wiki.
find them, lixluke....and you get a prize.
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].

I don't give a crap who you trolls choose to harass. Either way, it is a violation.
We didn't harass you. The only reason you came across as a dick on that page is because you ARE a dick.

We didn't harass you. The only reason you came across as a dick on that page is because you ARE a dick.
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 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?
Actually several of us did, not just me, becasue we all knew the article was broadly true.

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.

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.

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.

A broadly true article is not the same as an accurate and correct article.
No, but its mostly true. And you took out the true bits along with whatever else.

No, but its mostly true. And you took out the true bits along with whatever else.
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.
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.

It was full of trash, and inconsistent citations leading to posts taken out of connotation.
There was perhaps one (the baby dangling) , but everything else was totally true. (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7030)

Did we take this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1201118&postcount=44)out of context?

If you are full of trash then of course anything descriptive written about you will reflect that.

More bollocks (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=834760&postcount=14).

There was perhaps one (the baby dangling) , but everything else was totally true. (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=7030)

Did we take this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1201118&postcount=44)out of context?
No it wasn't. I already typed in the correct information here within this thread. None of that was in the article.

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.
HAHAHAHA!!!!

Why do you continue to make an ass (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1092396&postcount=143)out of yourself?
Those are all legitimate arguments, but I guess you do not know how to read correctly.

More bollocks (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=834760&postcount=14).
You mean Bells and Baron? Yes all bollocks.
HAHAHAHA!!!!

Why then, do you continue to make an ass (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1092396&postcount=143)out of yourself?

And it just keeps on (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=835144&postcount=22) commin'!

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.

Why then, do you continue to make an ass (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1092396&postcount=143)out of yourself?

And it just keeps on (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=835144&postcount=22) commin'!
What are you talking about? Both of those links clearly prove my point.
They try to argue without logic.

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.

On (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=871211&postcount=63) and on (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=856660&postcount=90).

Both of those links clearly prove my point.
And it is this delusion that does you so much damage.

nor do i.

Yeah, but you are cool, we like you.

i PMed TDI the 2 facts on his wiki.
i hope i'm right.

So, how about banning CS? Is there anyone against except him?
Mods should at least discuss that in their super secret forum.

And on it goes (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/User_talk:Kul_xil)

i PMed TDI the 2 facts on his wiki.
i hope i'm right.

I know

TDI eats tasty retards
and
After exploratory surgery, doctors confirmed that The Devil Inside indeed has a devil inside.

And its not just old threads, he's still (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64057) at it. Dont anyone dare disagree with him on M Jackson!

And it is this delusion that does you so much damage.
Get real you are deluded. Especially posting posting my responses to fafinir the troll's flames.

Really? All those were given as evidence of your post style - one that sucks considerably. You have lots of ideas, then you tell anyone who disagrees with them that they are trolls. Time after time.

Actually I agreed with him later on that thread.

I know

TDI eats tasty retards
and
After exploratory surgery, doctors confirmed that The Devil Inside indeed has a devil inside.
both of mine were wrong. and, uh, well yours you'll have to ask him.
he sent me the answers so i can't really help ya.

both of mine were wrong. and, uh, well yours you'll have to ask him.
he sent me the answers so i can't really help ya.

both of your answers were partly false, not fully. :)
there is SOME truth to both of those things, but they arent full fact.

sock puppet path is wrong too.

to be honest the sciwiki poll is pretty well even across the board
http://sciforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2713

as long as anyone is allowed to alter it, there wont be enough people to moderate it.

to be honest the sciwiki poll is pretty well even across the board
http://sciforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2713
There is nothing wrong with having a wiki that is not over serious, but the trolls and vandals should not be tolerated.

the trolls and vandals should not be tolerated.
I agree. The sooner we ban you the better.

I completely agree with that!

Motion passed.

By the way what's with nicolodeon tooth decay?

Motion failed miserably.

Poor dental hygiene.

I was bored today and next thing I knew I was at a dentist for the first time in a decade. And aperently I did had a little hole thanks Nick I ow you one.

You go to the dentist to aleviate your boredom?
What kind of sick, twisted fuck are you?

LOL, The Little shop of horrors kind

Yeah Bill Murray is my favorite in that movie. No I yust hate being bored.

I hate being bored too, but I tend not to go and have a man drill my face.

thats why your tooth is disappearing.

Following orcots example I emailed my dentist to schedule a visit.

how frikken childish can you get luke licker?
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Unofficial_encyclopedia_team

i see someone has reverted the page. thanks to whoever it was.

how frikken childish can you get luke licker?
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Unofficial_encyclopedia_team

WTF! something hasto be done about that idiot before he kills a squirrel or something.

Squirrels are pretty evil.

I see Sean is exercising his adult behaviour again, shame for a man in his thirties. Link (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&oldid=7368)

I mentioned it in the secret subforum.

Funny, how he speaks against vandalism by vandalizing. link (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=IRRELEVANT%21_TROLL%21&oldid=7383)

and another link: link (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User:Samcdkey&oldid=7387)

Funny, how he speaks against vandalism by vandalizing. link (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=IRRELEVANT%21_TROLL%21&oldid=7383)

and another link: link (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User:Samcdkey&oldid=7387)

Its like spraying the words "NO FUCKING GRAFFITI HERE!" across a public building.

and another link: link (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User:Samcdkey&oldid=7387)
What? why did he attack samcdkey? has he gone fucking nuts??

by the way, he has to be banned from the encyclopedia, he's wrecking our finest articles

by the way, he has to be banned from the encyclopedia, he's wrecking our finest articles

Too bad, he's pretty imaginative and could have contributed something good.

What? why did he attack samcdkey? has he gone fucking nuts??

Sokay, I'm in good company.:D

Sokay, I'm in good company.:D

No one even pays attention to absane. Maybe a good thing or not. From what's been put on there, I don't change it. I'll let others tell me who I am.

From what's been put on there, I don't change it. I'll let others tell me who I am.

Thats what I think too.:)

coolskill's page being locked is gay.

ubergay.

Feel free to edit: http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Sean_Jeremy_Sarda_Lee

"I have taken a break from employment for the sake of concentrating on writing, and producing my music full time."

I thought he said he doesnt have a job because people who work were slaves.

Feel free to edit: http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Sean_Jeremy_Sarda_Lee

thank you :)

"I have taken a break from employment for the sake of concentrating on writing, and producing my music full time."

I thought he said he doesnt have a job because people who work were slaves.

And given the fact that he says media should not have monetary value, he sure is a hypocrite. He's talking about making it big and being on MTV?

Edit: O'Rly? His phone number can be found on there...

He's gonna write music to give to charities for them to play as theme songs.

From Luke's bio:

I plan to be living like this for the next few months until I finish my CD. As soon as my CD is completed, I can start making very good money performing, and selling my CD. I may not be able to see many of you in the near future, but I promise that before long, my music will be played on radios throughout the globe, and my videos will be played on MTV. And we will see eachother again.

He is going to work hard for a few years and put out a CD? doesnt he realise everyone is going to steal it:) and his MTV performances will be bootlegged all over the web? does he even have talent at all?

What? why did he attack samcdkey? has he gone fucking nuts??
I never vadalized anybody that did not flame me first.

I never vadalized anybody that did not flame me first.

i didnt flame you.
at all.
thanks.

I never vadalized anybody that did not flame me first.
samcdkey flamed you?

I never vadalized anybody that did not flame me first.

Where did I flame you?

Where did I flame you?

by being friendly with a few select members.

"if ya arent with us, yer with the terrorists!"

You restored an article that he had vandalized.

Where did I flame you?
You, and a bunch of known vandals put my name on the Troll article.

You restored an article that he had vandalized.

he doesnt know how lucky he got off with my entries.
i wish that i had had more time when i did them.

You, and a bunch of known vandals put my name on the Troll article.

this is because you are a troll.
do i whine that i am on the list?
:p

I was on the trollarticle too! Did I go fucking nuts?

i didnt flame you.
at all.
thanks.
BULL CRAP!
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=6608

You, and a bunch of known vandals put my name on the Troll article.

Nope I did not.
I just reverted your vandalism

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&diff=prev&oldid=7375

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&diff=prev&oldid=7367

Sorry, I meant this (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=IRRELEVANT%21_TROLL%21&direction=prev&oldid=7406)article, one in which both liks and I are on.

Nope I did not.
I just reverted your vandalism

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&diff=prev&oldid=7375

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&diff=prev&oldid=7367

Come on, thats more than enough to justify this (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Samcdkey&direction=next&oldid=7395) (!)

BULL CRAP!
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Lixluke&oldid=6608

that is flaming?
damn...i wonder what you would call what you did to my userpage then?
lightyears beyond anything i have contributed to yours.

you are so awesome. i hope i can grow up and be a rockstar just like you.

Nope I did not.
I just reverted your vandalism

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&diff=prev&oldid=7375

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Troll&diff=prev&oldid=7367
Consider the following:
CS takes his name off of the Troll list.
Avatar puts it back.
This is already vandalism.
Everytime I try to take my name off of the troll list Avatar continued to put it back.
This is complete obsessive trolling.
As a result, I vandalized the article with Avatar's name all over it.
You took it upon yourself to put the article back. The version with my name on the troll list for no reason.
Do not expect me not to vandalize your article when you are putting my name in a troll list for no reason.

I never trolled anybody or vandalized anybody that did not commit an act against me first.

Come on, thats more than enough to justify this (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Samcdkey&direction=next&oldid=7395) (!)
Yes it does. You trolls do not just vandalize articles, but are using the Sciforums Wiki to harass and flame me left and right.

Yes it does. You trolls do not just vandalize articles, but are using the Sciforums Wiki to harass and flame me left and right.

you just wait.
you aint seen nothin yet.

i would suggest vandalizing my article now, before i get rolling later tonight, when i have time to post forum content to your article.

Consider the following:
CS takes his name off of the Troll list.
Avatar puts it back.
This is already vandalism.
Everytime I try to take my name off of the troll list Avatar continued to put it back.
This is complete obsessive trolling.
As a result, I vandalized the article with Avatar's name all over it.
You took it upon yourself to put the article back. The version with my name on the troll list for no reason.
Do not expect me not to vandalize your article when you are putting my name in a troll list for no reason.

I never trolled anybody or vandalized anybody that did not commit an act against me first.

What a silly fellow you are!

Consider the following:
CS takes his name off of the Troll list.
Avatar puts it back.
This is already vandalism.
Everytime I try to take my name off of the troll list Avatar continued to put it back.
This is complete obsessive trolling.
As a result, I vandalized the article with Avatar's name all over it.
You took it upon yourself to put the article back. The version with my name on the troll list for no reason.
Do not expect me not to vandalize your article when you are putting my name in a troll list for no reason.

I never trolled anybody or vandalized anybody that did not commit an act against me first.
why don't you FUCKING GROW UP lixluke.
do you realize how many times the unofficial was put on the main page and avatar took it off? huh? DO YOU?

keep it up numbnuts and the mods will give you something to REALLY cry about.