User talk:Radiumsoup

meh - my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia entry, and it goes down in flames. (Pun intended.)

"Wikipedians," as they call themselves, are more elitist and pricktentious than TFers in the minds of Liters.

And what did you expect? If Wikipedia allowed hoaxes like this, it wouldn't be a website worth your time to visit anyway. People whine about the bullshit that might be on Wikipedia, and when we call them on their own bullshit, they whine ten times harder about that. Melchoir 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's whining about the content on Wikipedia? Certainly not me. It's all 100% subjective anyway, no matter how many times it gets edited and re-edited. It's semi-moderated anarchy, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PUBLIC PAGE ON THE INTERNET. Wikipedia isn't special. You're a fool to think you are above the fray because you "know what's best" for everyone reading this website. Grow up.

Oh, and if you're going to put bold text somewhere on the intarwebs in an attempt to show it as a quote, CITE YOUR DAMNED SOURCE. You've just proven my statement about self-professed "Wikipedians." Website worth my time indeed. How can YOU put value on MY time? Elitist priss. Radiumsoup 17:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just whined about the content on Wikipedia, just now. Wikipedia:Cite sources is actually one of the reasons why it isn't 100% subjective. But I don't need to cite anything on your user talk page; you know exactly how accurate that quote is. Your mission on Wikipedia appears to be to promote a day-old neologism while falsifying its source. We both know that a hilarious joke was played on TNDoT; let's not try to play the same joke on a website whose members actually read Fark. "Uniting Friends In America" does not exist, and I'm removing it. Melchoir 18:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God - you SOOOOOOOO pwned me! Seriously - I'm in awe of your majestic power and ability to singlehandedly transform the poor unwashed masses of the intarwebs into intelligent, sentient beings. What would we do without you? Farkers are collectively grateful you're one of them. I mean, we would surely be a lost group of wandering souls if it weren't for your genius. How can I become more like you? Oh, I know. I could don an aura of pretentious arrogance. (Redundancy added for effect.) Problem solved, thanks for the help! --Radiumsoup 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Hutto, Texas, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You tube, being user edited, is not a reliable source. John from Idegon (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hutto, Texas. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Even if you disagreed with my revision, the proper thing to do would have been start a discussion on the talk page, not just put it back. it is unreferenced...you tube is never going to be a valid source. John from Idegon (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC) lol but it is a valid source...because it is the original source. this moron thinks that some article referencing youtube is a valid source but the youtube link is not. what a pretentious little bitch[reply]