User talk:Weri long wang/Personal Archive

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


Please note the guidelines at the top of VFH: self-nominated articles must be at least a week old before they are eligible for voting. Thank you, good sir. --—rc (t) 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Q: What’s the difference between Ann Coulter and Judge Dredd? A: Judge Dredd serves a purpose! (Also less shit comes out of Sylvester Stallone’s mouth than out of Ann Coulters.)


I've done a very large revert on God. The new revision was unecessarily crass, offensive, and politically motivated at the expense of humor. Hope you don't mind. --Chronarion 23:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: God... Weri, please understand that many people have different senses of humor; while you may not find the current incarnation of God funny, a great deal of other people do (enough to have made God a Featured Article). However, your version does have merit. In cases such as this, I would recommend creating a second, separate article (Almighty God, perhaps?) instead of messing with the present version. Our full policy on these sorts of situations can be found at Uncyclopedia:Flamewar Guidelines. Thanks. --Algorithm (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the revision was that while I am definitely a liberal nutjob... it was far too political to stay on topic. We have a huge number of political and racial jabs, and the current revision allows a more neutral stance. Admittedly "the artist formerly" and "contact" is kinda lame, but the rest is better, IMHO. --Chronarion 06:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Please do not remove other users votes from VFH. This is a bannable offence, but I'm quite willing to give you chance to explain why it happened. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

Organised religion[edit]

You're right, I guess I did leave you without a suggestion...If "Organized Religion" as a title, and transferring to the Christianity article are not suitable, then may I suggest a rename to something like:

  • "Theism"
  • "Monotheism"
  • "Worship of God"
  • "The One True Religion"
  • "The Christian Church"
  • "The Impact of God on The World"
  • "The Other Side of God"
  • "Yahweh"
  • "The funny version of the Christianity article" (kidding, don't kill me)

(Warning: There is utter bullshit from here on out)

  • "The Dark One"
  • "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"
  • "The G-Man"
  • "Lord of Pain"
  • "The Anti-Satan"
  • "Christ-Junkees"
  • "Flawed Belief System"
  • "Christianity and YOU"
  • "Christianity and God"
  • "Christianity, You, and God"

(Bullshit ends here. Probably.)

I hope some of these "catch your fancy", so to say. I was particular to "The Christian Church", since it's close enough to what you probably meant by the title and to the actual content of the article. Use what you want, though, we're all going to Hell anyways. Let me know on my Talk page if you change it. I would also like to see it on the Christianity article. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go offer tribute to Satan to strike down my foes. That's how I win every battle. --Señor DiZtheGreat Honor me! CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah I'll join...Campioni Del Mondo CigaroDiscorsoArticoli

WLW, you wroted: "...Maybe you could expand upon this and talk about Moses’ actions with regard to the conquered Midianite people from the book of Numbers?" I reply: OK, when I have time I'll give it a try. I've been orf-line for a few days on a river trip or I would have probably replied sooner...----OEJ 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WLW, I'll have another look at Organised Religion and do what small things I can. I just started an article on Xanax (a trans-Pluto planet) but in the breaks I'll be on O.R. Cheers ------OEJ 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Evil Conservatives Strike Back[edit]

Ok...I did not say that. A person named "Mr. Briggs" did, (they did not sign their name). I looked at the edit history and saw nothing wrong. --Icons-flag-us.png SonicChao Babbel!Contribs 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

gupi jestes[edit]


Anonymous user[edit]

It looks to me like he was just a random vandal. The message above looks like Romanian or something, and I see no evidence that this user left it in retaliation for any of your articles. Most likely he just hit Random page a few times and left his scrawl on whatever came up. I really don't think it's a personal attack, though. Also, you might find that a better way of raising an admin is to look at the Recent changes and see who's active, rather than leaving messages on a whole bunch of talk pages. Of the seven admins you left messages for, only myself and Brad are active on anything like a daily basis; two are here intermittently, two have been hardly active for months, and one is a bot. Anyhow, don't forget you can also report vandals to Ban Patrol. Cheers. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


I'd love to have a flame war with you, but the only changes I made to your article were changing "the 19 of August 1946" to "August 19, 1946" (yours isn't proper a proper date format) and "intelligent design" to "[[intelligent design]]". See my edit in case you mixed me up with someone else.

Great articles by the way. ^_~ -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I edited the paragraph, but if you scroll down you'll see the same paragraph in my edit. I don't know why, but oh well. As for the "Deep rooted hatred of Liberty?/!" thing, that was Duelblast. [1] -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You have way too much free time. You should join some cult or something. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

God, not again[edit]

<cough> Let's not get into this again. I'm "Abstain"ing just to show that we of the God article don't hold grudges. If it was tighter and more picturific I'd vote for. Modusoperandi 01:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn’t <cough> trying to Get into <cough> anything again. The only <cough> Reason I mentioned the <cough> God article is because someone realized that the pictures would be a good thing to <cough> Whine about. I had no idea that you were watching and waiting (though it doesn’t <cough> Surprise me). I did not mention the God article for any other reason and I wasn’t trying to hade any kind of message behind that statement!!!!! 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. Weri long wang 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) wasn't that, dagnabit. It was because of the "politically correct" thing. The reasons your version of God wasn't loved on God (the article) was it is a mature (as in complete) featured article (the kind of article least in need of a rewrite or revision). It had nothing to do with political correctness. I guess we weren't clear before. Organised religion is starting to grow on me, it's less mean and more funny that it was when it was TFVOTGA. Keep it up. Modusoperandi 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There was no need to comment on it though. It wasn't trying to provoke you or anybody else by calling it "politically correct" I just couldn't think of anything else. People keep telling me it needs a "rewrite or revision". I've rewrote and revised it at least 10 times now! Why don't you change it to make it more inline with what people want? I've been asking people to help me change the article for months now but only one person has taken the bait so far and he seems to have done a good job. Maybe you could do a better or bettererer job. Weri long wang 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sadly I can be of little help to you. If I wrote an article on god, it would be God. The closest I got to a veangeful god was American Fundie Magazine. That page reflects a minority of godness, and I would never put it on VFH as it (as with your god page) is a niche page. Those who get it really get it, and those that don't really don't. Try not to let it get you down. I actually had more fun with the talk page for "Left Behind" on VFP than I did with the image itself (and it got butchered on VFP). As long as you get people talking, right? Modusoperandi 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that it’s a niche page that you either love or hate; Kind of like Marmite (if you have Marmite in the US). It’s kind of like the kid on Family Guy said about Aaron Sorkin’s Sports Night: "It’s a comedy that’s too good to be funny”. [2]Weri long wang 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, don't let it get you down. Most of the stuff I've written/photoshopped is for me. Granted, it's nice when other people get it, but when it comes down to it this is where I take the piss out of things that scare me. It's relaxing, in a weird sort of way. I'm not angry when I'm done writing about whatever it was that mad me mad in the first place. Modusoperandi 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Media[edit]

To suggest that only Democrats are humans is purely political prejudice; the entire article itself is nothing but slander against Republicans. To sort of reduce the overwhelming POV slander, I made Democrats robots as well (androids are robots made to resemble a human, whereas a typical robot isn't), thus suggesting a bit more neutrality or "middle of the road" political POV for the article, making it less offensive to those who might be Republican. Not that I was offended by the article, I found it funny as hell. It may seem extremely offensive to others though, due to the amount of slander against Republicans as oppose to Democrats who you call "human", which ultimately suggests that Democrats are morally better than Republicans, which in itself seems to come out of personal and extremely biased opinion, and that my friend is propaganda, and Uncyclopedia is not propaganda (although it may seem so at times). In all fairness, any politician or hardcore Republican/Democrat is a robot in my view. If anything, articles should express a neutral political view, as politics and political bias tends to start heated flamewars, especially when they contain discriminant slander. We're not here to offend anyone, so calling Democrats "androids" is just as fair and overall expected as calling Republicans "robots". --emc! 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right! It is Uncyclopedia. Of course, we don't have a NPOV policy, but some things are no-brainer, such as not deliberately insulting roughly 50% of the United States population.

"Thanks and I hope we can find a productive way to humiliate, defame, dehumanize and destroy the Democrats together!"

No thanks. When you have a demeanor such as that when you create articles, what you're going to get is inevitable: negative backlash from readers and possibly other Uncyclopedians. I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservative media article became one of the most highly vandalized pages on Uncyclopedia.

Although it's a pretty laid-back writing process to write for Uncyclopedia, you really should consider your audience, and articles that just outright slander may give people a negative perspective about Uncyclopedia, which is what we do not want. We want our articles to appeal to all audiences. Changing their status from "humans" to "androids" levels out the article a bit. Even if it does confuse readers (which is unlikely because inconsistency is what confuses a majority of readers), it may be necessary to avoid negative feedback. That, or change the entire article. --emc! 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Last I knew, sock-puppetry on this website was punishible by infinite banishment. I'm assuming that this rule still holds, so you might want to be very careful with this user. Regardless, either you fix the template so it doesn't fuck up the formatting on user pages, or I delete it for being stupid, superfluous, and nonsensical. 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your infinite charm and courtesy aside, I didn’t know that this was wrong. Change it so it’s appropriate if you must. I though the “user” on the userbox template literally meant it was stored on a user account. Sorry for the mistake.Weri long wang 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox templates are *templates* - meaning that they are of the sort Template:Anncoulterlies. They go on user pages, thus the title "Userbox template". Something about that particular userbox, and I'm too lazy to try to figure it out, breaks formatting on the page by somewhat ignoring where sections start and end.

Awhile back there was a moderately large ruckus because of users who were using/abusing multiple accounts. Because of this, there's a pretty strong "one user, one account" policy. And people get a little irritable when sock-puppetry is suspected. Just a little heads-up there.

So anyway, feel free to move the code on that page to the template I linked to above - that may fix the formatting problem, or you can look at other templates and see what they do differently. 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing the "Liberal media" Article[edit]

Done. [3] -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Democrat article[edit]

I reverted that article because I thought it was funny that each party says bad things about the other. No harm meant. 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I apologize for any time wasted. 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

American liberals[edit]

It doesn't say it's considered British. The header says that it's considered American humor.--Mister Nosey 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why so many edits?[edit]

Don't you know where the "Show preview" button is? -- Mitch Icons-flag-au.png 16:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: for example, on the Politically Correct page you made 15 edits in two hours! Look at your contributions. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just an observation. -- Mitch Icons-flag-au.png 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of evolution and yours[edit]

I’m getting sick of this stupid argument so I want to make some things very clear:

Arrogance is not a virtue[edit]

I will ask you to stop continuously telling me that I know jack squat about science and evolution. When you say I clearly know nothing about the theory, what are you basing it on? What things about evolution have I said that contradict your vast and thorough knowledge of it?

My understanding of evolution and science[edit]

I will take this further by saying that I know a great deal about all branches of science and got two Bs and an A in my A-Levels in the subjects of biology, mathematics and physics respectively. I am now studying for a BSc in network computing at Coventry University, so I can’t be that stupid!

If you are not stupid you are either misinformed or lying. Either that or Coventry University is a paper mill university that doesn't even teach things like critical thinking, logic and reason. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Coventry University is a respected university and since I’ve only been studying here for a month I can’t have learned much of their curriculum which discourages critical thinking now cans I? Religious people don’t often criticize computer science or computer networks so I don’t feel the need for “critical thinking” with respect to rebutting arguments on behalf of religion.

”Attacks on Christianity”[edit]

What was the purpose of that snide heading? Evolution stands in contradiction to every creation myth from the Book of Genesis (which is Jewish I might add, not Christian) all the way to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am just trying to argue against creationism being taught as science in school. If you ask any reputable biologist from Prof. Richard Dawkins at New College Oxford, to Dr. Ken Miller (a Roman Catholic) in Brown University, they will all tell you that there is NO “controversy” in the scientific community about whether or not Darwinian evolution by the process of natural selection is correct or not. Since I’ve mentioned Dr. Ken Miller I might as well bring up the theory of “intelligent design” and the verdict of Judge John Jones (who is himself a Republican conservative appointed by George Bush):

If you bothered to possess any reading comprehension, you'll note that I said the theory of evolution is flawed, not wrong. Your inedibility to know the difference between those two shows your lack of knowledge and understanding. What I had referenced was Dawkin's article attacking religion and Christianity about "hell houses" and trying to pass it off as if every Christian denomination has them. Which I showed to you that it did not. I never mentioned that creationism or ID was right and evolution is wrong, which is clearly a bias on your part due to your faulty logic and reasoning abilities. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not biased. I will say it again: I think evolution is 100% right (in concept at least, there are many small details that remain to be discovered, as with all great scientific theories, but the argument of neo-Darwinian evolution itself is correct) and that any derivative of creationism is 100% wrong. Nothing to do with Christianity I assure you.

Intelligent Design and the Dover County school board[edit]

You have argued several times that intelligent design is on a par with, or are even superior to Neo-Darwinian evolution. Well that argument didn’t stand up very well in court. Here I have copied and pasted sections from the article to save time:

No I did not, that is a bias on your part. I mentioned that they overlap in some ways, which is not the same as to say one is superior over the other. For example Creationism and Evolution say that human beings were the end result of life, there are 17 other points that overlap, but I won't bother going over them to one who cannot comprehend them like you. Clearly another faulty logic and reasoning in your case and your fault again. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I am introducing you to the existence of a court case; little need for logical reasoning there.


On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiff and issued a 139 page decision in which he wrote:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)
"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86 – 87)
"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worsts a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)
"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

In his Conclusion on pages 136-138 of 139 of this decision he writes:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. […]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. […]
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. […]

From now on I will not argue with you on the validity of intelligent design. If you don’t agree with the judge’s decision, I suggest you argue with him instead of me.

I will ask for a reasonable repine to this Judge’s verdict if ID is correct.

Arguments on behalf of evolution[edit]

I have not said much about individual examples of natural selection in action. An example might be the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria in a polluted lake in Japan. Most of the trillions upon trillions of bacteria in the lake died; those lucky enough to have the right mutated gene in their plasmids survived and thrived. A classic example of natural selection in action.

I will go further though, because people who attack evolution often call this “microevolution” and that “macroevolution”, the conclusive proof that evolution is correct, has never been observed. The main argument by creationists is that every aspect of an organism’s construction is elegant and perfect; ergo it must have been designed.

One of the examples creationists always bring up is the eye. In the human retina the light sensing cells (photoreceptors) are always pointing away from the light. That is, light entering the cornea has to pass over the ganglion, amacrine, bipolar and horizontal cells before finally reaching the photoreceptors. Very bizarre. The one exception to this is a tiny section at the centre of the retina called the fovea where the photoreceptors are actually facing the light. But this just makes it even more bizarre! Why on Earth would God lay out our eyes out like this? The retina in an octopus is the right way round, so why not us humans (and all other mammals)?

That in itself is an example of bad design which contradicts the design hypothesis; but that is nothing when you consider the eye layout of the flounder. Flounders have evolved to become flat fish, but due to the layout of their body when they first began to occupy this niche one of their eyes was always pointing down into the sea bed. Not very useful! So over the generations the flounder has evolved to have a skull which literally twists around shortly after birth so both eyes are on one side of the head! It is a very poorly “thought out” solution to the problem; but evolution by natural selection explains it. Are you seriously suggesting that God came up with that design?

There’s one more argument which is loosely related to this one and that is that predators always seem to become more adept in catching prey, while prey always seem to become more adept at evading predators. Whose side is God on here!!! The answer: it’s evolutions analogy to an arms race; as one side gains the upper hand you advance and gain the upper hand yourself.

There is no point debating with you if you are going to get emotional about it and refuse to use logic and reason and continue to use fallacies. I made reasonable and logical arguments, and I need not explain them farther if you lack the knowledge to understand them. You can continue on your emotional diatribe and attack on Christians and religion without me. I have better things to do than waste my time on your fallacious arguments. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Emotion? I provided examples of natural selection in action. It is impossible to display “emotion” while doing such a thing! If I started quoting the equations of Newton’s theory of gravity would that be considered “emotional”?

Liberals and a funny article[edit]

To this day, as far as I am aware, you have never edited the liberals article and I have never reverted, questioned and complained about your edits. You seem like a reputable user (rather than some idiot hiding behind an I.P. address) so you are welcome to edit the article. I’ve taken your advice on making fun of PETA in the more appropriate article, American liberals. Want to check it out? What university did you study at by the way? What did you study? Weri long wang 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope but you rant and rave on the Liberal talk page and whine like some sort of emo wannabe. I tried to use logic and reason with you, but you do not seem to understand logic and reason. Your lack of knowledge and understanding on your part, and failure to understand logic and reason, does not mean that I have to cater to your every whim and demand. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Very rude. There is no need to speak to me like that. Making fun of American liberals and PETA does not require “logic and reasoning”. Did you misread what I said or something?

Wrong, as usual, on all counts[edit]

No, I am not getting “emotional” on the subject. I am putting forth the argument, in a scientific and courteous manner that life originating from an “intelligent designer” is wrong and life emerging from Darwinian evolution is correct.

I’m speaking to you in a courteous and respectful manner and you speak to me like I’m something you scraped off your shoe. Let me quote some of you’re emotionally motivated and not so charming comments:

  • If you are not stupid you are either misinformed or lying. Either that or Coventry University is a paper mill university that doesn't even teach things like critical thinking, logic and reason.
  • If you bothered to possess any reading comprehension, you'll note that I said the theory of evolution is flawed, not wrong. Your inedibility to know the difference between those two, shows your lack of knowledge and understanding.
  • I won't bother going over them to one who cannot comprehend them like you
  • Your lack of knowledge and understanding on your part, and failure to understand logic and reason, does not mean that I have to cater to your every whim and demand.

What motivates you to speak like that? It can’t possibly be emotion. Also, if Coventry University (which I’ve been at for little more than a month) is a “paper mill” university then where did you study? Cambridge? Oxford? Harvard? Yale? Princeton?

What motivates you to speak like that? I just want to have a polite conversation here. When I provide examples of evolution in action your response is: “There is no point debating with you if you are going to get emotional about it and refuse to use logic and reason and continue to use fallacies”. The design of the retina of humans and octopuses, the layout of a flounder’s skull, the existence of nylon eating bacteria and the prey-predator arms race; these are fallacies? I suggest you dig out your encyclopedia or check out Wikipedia. I think you’ll find I’m correct in every case. And by the way, how is demonstrating evolution by describing real life examples of natural selection “emotional”. You can continue on your emotional diatribe and attack on Christians and religion without me. A diatribe against Christianity? You say I can’t comprehend arguments!!!!!!

Also why didn’t you give a response to the findings of Judge John Jones? I suppose you’ve got no reasonable response have you? And if I lack knowledge and understanding in biology, how do you explain my accolades on Wikipedia? Are you going to say that doesn’t understand evolution either? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if you did.

Because my logic and reason and critical thinking you could not comprehend in talk:liberals, so I used language here that I know you would understand. Wikipedia, big deal, if it was Scientific American you'd have a point, let me know if you got any of your papers published with a peer review next time that are searchable in scientific databases used by colleges and research labs, anyone can write Wikipeia articles and get accolades. Remember that peer review, part of the scientific method that you fail to comprehend. You obviously couldn't get your papers published, so you resorted to Wikipedia and some sockpuppets voted your articles up. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I’m 19 years old. The work on Wikipedia is not new scientific work to get published in Scientific American. Your typical rude tone reveals your emotional dedication to this subject. I only mentioned Wikipedia because time and time again you call me, a very well educated young man, an “idiot”. You still haven’t told me what University you went to. (I wonder why)
19 years old and think you know it all, eh? I'm 38 and I was learning science and other things since before you where born. My resume on my user page shows my education, but then you aren't bright enough to figure out how to find it, are you? "Idiot" is your word and not mine. I just said you lacked the knowledge and understanding, which means you don't have the experience or education yet to discuss things with the adults. Let me know when you grow up and can continue this conversation, otherwise it is over. I pegged you for a whiny emo wannabe, and apparently you are. I only gave you a taste of your own medicine from what you did to me, how does it feel? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My resume on my user page shows my education, but then you aren't bright enough to figure out how to find it, are you? You trademark charm aside, it doesn't exactly stand out on your user page and your resume is unintelligible nonsense about pirate ships and at no point do you mention the university at which you studied.--Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize for all my posts here. I am really sorry, I had a bit of a month and got very stressed out dealing with a user codenamed Anonymous Slashy. If you really want to know more details about me, you can check out my Classmates profile and I really had not had time to add enough of it to my resume which I actually tried to make funny, but I guess I fail at it for an Unresume. What college I attended depends on what part of my life you are talking about. I traveled about, worked here and there, studied here and there, took plane trips, etc. Nothing really special to speak about. I just wished I could have done more with my life, but mental illnesses got the better of me, and I went from college to college from work to work, trying to find the right college the right employer. Eventually I got too sick to work physically and mentally, but I still try to work with computers and research things, and as a hobby I try to be funny on the Internet. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)