Talk:Revert War

From sciforums_encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Member articles

As spuriousmonkey points out, GW Bush shouldn't get to dictate what goes on the GW Bush Wikipedia article, so neither should a SciForums member get to dictate what goes in their Sciclopedia article. But, continuing back and forth reverts are senseless. So what do we do? --Pete 02:35, 15 March 2007 (EST)

Continue forth and back? Let the revisionist deniers of Truth win? I dunno. redarmy11 02:39, 15 March 2007 (EST)
as i said on the secret subforum this isn't Myspace. The lixluke page isn't lixluke's Myspace page. Maybe the lixluke page is cuurently extreme but that is only because his behaviour on sciforums has been extreme. Spuriousmonkey 02:47, 15 March 2007 (EST)


And like I said. I don't give a crap if this is myspace or not. You are living in a fantasy dreamworld if you think I am not going to take offense to anything written about me for the purpose of making a mockery out of me. And you are damn sure dreaming if you think I am going to sit there and allow you trolls to do so without doing anything about it. I don't know why I am so important to trolls that they repeatedly trash me all over the wiki left and right. Trashing a member is one thing. You probably post jokes about all members. But sitting there reverting it over and over to have your way is obsessive. It is not a myspace article, but it is an article about me. I am the one who holds most stake with respect to any information about me on this wiki. Not only do you trolls not respect that, you revert it over and over and over relentlessly as if you had so much stake in it. I have been pondering a long time as to why you do this, and it continues to baffle me why the fuck you are so concerned with repeatedly reverting an article that you know is offensive to the member that article is about. –CS


CS you're fucking doing it again. you CANNOT EDIT OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE. THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE. YOU CANT DELETE SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE HAS POSTED AS AN OPINION JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT. You can add you own thoughts, but you DO NOT CHNAGE SOMEONE ELSES COMMENTS.Nickelodeon 17:41, 16 March 2007 (EST)
Fine. This is a discussion page. Bicker about me all you want here, and I won't edit it. With regards to an article however, when a user finds information about him to be offenseive, and revises it, it is not vandalization. Or when a user finds an entire article about him full of information about him that he finds offensive, and completely overhauls it, it is not vandalization. When another user revises articles or posts to insert outright offensive content about a member, that is pure vanalism. Especially knowing the particular member that the information is about is against it. Doing it once is simple vandalism. When they do this repeatedly, it is trolling and harassment. CS revising information about CS that CS finds offensive is not vandalizing the article. Another user that is not CS repeatedly reverting articles to include content about CS that is offensive to CS is vandalizing. Using the Sciforums Encyclopedia to repeatedly propogate all kinds of offensive content about a user is outright harassment. Using the Sciforums Encyclopedia specifically to harass a member of Sciforums is outright trolling or griefing. There need not be any revert wars in this encyclopedia if users allow users to revise information about themselves that they find offensive.-CS
Blah blah blah.....Nickelodeon 04:21, 17 March 2007 (EST)
That's the thing - there's no winners and losers in a wiki. The goal is to move toward an ideal article... and everybody wins. But we're not moving anywhere on Lixluke; it's stuck in a rut. Maybe adding an edit that isn't a simple revert would be a step in the right direction.
  • I don't think coolskill will be happy with any edit other than one that says how wonderful he is. he is a la Stalin Spuriousmonkey 02:53, 15 March 2007 (EST)
  • Not everything on that page was untrue. Nickelodeon 03:06, 15 March 2007 (EST)
  • I put back in the referenced stuff.Spuriousmonkey 03:13, 15 March 2007 (EST)
    • Trolls linking anything about me to the old vandalized version of my article please discontinue. It is getting old. The proper link to my article is lixluke.
I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave. Avatar 17:03, 16 March 2007 (EST)
Its not your article is an article about you. You dont own it. We can link to whatever page we want when we create new articles. Nickelodeon 17:06, 16 March 2007 (EST)

I propose we just get rid of CS (ban,burn,roast,whatever) and put back the referenced stuff. --Avatar 17:01, 16 March 2007 (EST)

I concur. Nickelodeon 17:03, 16 March 2007 (EST)

What I don't understand is, why is he still not banned? Many other members have been permanently banned for far less offences, but CS is allowed to insult everyone and act as a particulary disgusting individual with no penalty whatsoever. --Avatar 17:09, 16 March 2007 (EST)

Exactly. Nickelodeon 17:16, 16 March 2007 (EST)
spurious, what is happening there in the secret forum, why is CS tolerated? Something is fishy, and it's not lixluxes vagina. Avatar
When you think about it, we quite easily found a hell of a lot of references of him acting disgustingly, insulting, and downright childish. Yet nothing. Nickelodeon 17:20, 16 March 2007 (EST)
  • Get real. You are the one that has not been banned regardless of repeated harassment behavior. I don't see you requesting for yourself to be banned.