User talk:AKR619

Well I was saving this until I was unblocked, when the original block expired in 3 days, but no the mod went crazy and extended it to 2 weeks, then 4 weeks, and now indefinite just because I said something. This block started when I edited the Australia page saying Nicole Kidman hated her performance in this movie, and Mark (the uptight mod who deleted me) claimed that the citation I gave said no such thing [1], now it says Afternoon Fix: Even Nicole Kidman Hated Nicole Kidman in Australia, last time I checked hated means...well, hated. I bet Mark didn't even bother to click on the link, because it's right there right For the record I loved Australia, it was for a couple of weeks my pick to win the Best Picture Academy Award this year. Now Mark if you're still uptight about the whole nickers comment, you damn well deserved it for being so stupid.

I have only blocked you for 4 weeks, then increased it to indefinite. I don't know what those other, shorter, blocks are to which you refer. The edit to the Australia movie article didn't play any part in my decision to block you; the block was brought on by you continuing to use edit summaries to attack other editors ("Yobmod came, he saw, he fucked up this article", "this is vandalisim", "oh shut up sockpuppet of GabrielKat") despite several warnings [2][3][4]. I increased it to indefinite when instead of requesting an unblock, as is your right and is explained by the block notifications, you implied I like to wear "nickers", which is clearly just a continuation of the same behaviour which led to your block in the first place. I would have been open to reducing your block if you had undertaken to actually start behaving in a mature and civil manner and politely requested a reconsideration of your block (in fact, I am still open to that). You make some good edits and it would be preferable to have you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but I do not believe that should occur unless you agree to behave like an adult in future, and to engage people in discussion rather than perpetuating revert wars. - Mark 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said "Yobmod came, he saw, he fucked up this article" this was because I was extremely pissed off at Yobmod's constant deletion of links to actual themes used in science fiction and giving rules for the page which makes finding themes that can be used on the article more harder then a pet owner's decision to put down their beloved animal (we had to use themes that were used in science fiction, they couldn't be used in any other genre, they had to appear in more then one franchise and we couldn't use several dozen tv shows as citations). Although what you did to the Home and Away character articles you'd probably agree with him. It's obvious that user who found a citation to Willow being produced by Imagine Entertainment is a sockpuppet of GabrielKat, and his/her edit to my discussion page really annoyed me. Anyhoo, yes I do agree to behave in a more civilised manner, like I was before, but even civilised people react so uncivilised if they are constantly annoyed by someone. --AKR619 (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please make an extra effort to be civil in future. I am going to shorten your block back down; it will expire in a couple of days. Please assume good faith in relation to people's edits in future: calling good-faith edits/content disputes "vandalism" doesn't calm the situation. As for the Nicole Kidman edit of yours which I reverted, I was looking at the wrong article when I said it didn't say what you said it said. But someone added a clearer blurb of her comments after I reverted you anyway. - Mark 08:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)