User talk:AGK

Please click to talk. Although I'm rarely active outside en:User:AGK, I get e-mail notifications of new messages here. Older threads are at: MMVIII • MMVII.

Opinion

"Kindly refrain from practising the same disruptive conduct you were blocked for on your other accounts. It's simply a huge waste of time. Constructive contributions are much more enjoyable." Anthøny ✉ 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) -Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KingMarlyn"

KingMarlyn wholeheartedly disagrees with your opinated statement. What is "more enjoyable" for you may not be the same for others. Being a relatively smart person, you know this. This also applies to what is "huge waste of time." KingMarlyn finds television a huge waste of time. CSI and The Real World are still on the air because it is not a huge waste of time for fans of those shows. KingMarlyn thanks you for your advice but thinks you are prejudiced, biased and arrogant. If you find that you would like to reply to this reply, please engage here as I am unable to edit my userpage at Wikipedia. KingMarlyn 3:02pm, 14 September 2008 (EST).

Indeed. I respect your opinion, but I would observe that, in holding such vehemently anti-Wikipedia views, you have little chance of being unblocked on any of your (many) (sock puppet) accounts.

*Sigh.* AGK [•] 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The goal of vandalism is not to be unlocked. Vandalism is the willful or malicious destruction (defacing) of public or private property. The mutliple accounts are a part of the vandalism. They have created more "waste time" but KingMarlyn imagines a lot of users love cleaning up vandalism, ie the task force. So based on the last three replies, where are we? What has your opinions changed? KingMarlyn wishes you a wonderful evening. KingMarlyn 5:20pm, 14 September 2008 (EST).

"anti-Wikipedia views" have stemmed from piss poor wikipedians (mostly Admins), C'est la vie. KingMarlyn 5:23pm, 14 September 2008 (EST).

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

"banned means banned"

Hi AGK, I saw your performance on Will Beback user page: "banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history".

So I thought you'd be kind enough to do it for me too, please. I've already asked barnstars to be removed , and they were, but now I believe removing barnstars only is not good enough. So, could you please remove everything from my user page leaving only banned user template, and then redirect my talk to my user page, that it also would have nothing else, but banned user template. Could you please also delete all user pages in my user space? I am asking you to do this because as you said "banned means banned", and also because "the banned user template" is the only thing I want to be associated with my user pages on wikipeia. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not honour such a request. AGK [•] 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But, why, oh why, AGK? I am banned, am I not? "Banned means banned", is it not? Are you refusing to do it because I deserve the honor less than Will BeBack does :-) I simply cannot believe that admins get preferential treatment even in adding "banned user templates" to user pages :-) Cheers --Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No melodrama, please. If there was a picture of one hundred naked trolls on your userpage, I would still be disincline to take action. The point of your ban is to exclude you from the English Wikipedia, and I am not about to assist you in circumventing that purpose. NRN. Regards, AGK [•] 20:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Melodrama"? I am having fun, are you?

In case you did not notice it is exactly what I am asking you to do. Please "exclude me "from the English Wikipedia" even more than I already am. because I am proud to be excluded from such community

• in which functionaries are using language like this:edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum" and like this edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it." and are still allowed to keep their tools.

• The community that is absolutely correctly described like this:...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant".

• The community, in which you, AGK, are an arbitrator. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Note that since en:Wikipedia maintains a list of banned users, there is really no need whatsoever for a ban template on the user page or talk page. A message that they have left the project suffices. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)