How Do You Report Encyclopedia Trolls

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?
 
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.

lixluke said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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)

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

lixluke said:
I have already stated why those citations do not make it true.
Click to expand...
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?
 
one_raven said:
Actually, you are.
No you didn't.
You simply cliamed it was done with malicious intent - that does nto make untrue at all.
Click to expand...
Learn how to read before you go about yapping your stupidity.


lixluke said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
lixluke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Nickelodeon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lixluke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Nickelodeon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Nickelodeon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top