User talk:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk • contribs • block logauto  confirmed socks) from introducing vandalism to it, posting abuse and nonsense or using the {{unblock}} template after the denial of a previous request . If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. (protection log).

Put your message below.

Contents

February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is not censored, not even to remove profanity or pornography. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article, as you did to Pearl necklace (sexuality). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Prolog 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious encyclopedia is not the place to host pornography. Thank you. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by building consensus and you are welcome to join the discussions on the respective talk pages of these articles. However, if you instead continue removing the images it might be regarded as vandalism. Thanks, Prolog 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
See my response below. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Ejaculation, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RJASE1 Talk 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ejaculation

I am neutral in regards to this article (I just watch it for vandalism) but, looking at the talk archives, it appears this image was arrived at through consensus. Please discuss before removing. If it helps, it appears the guidelines for these types of images are being discussed here. RJASE1 Talk 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Pearl necklace (sexuality), you will be blocked from editing. RJASE1 Talk 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia better (i.e. removing pornography) is not vandalizing. Thank you. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, just please read WP:NOT#CENSOR on policy and please work toward a consensus before making potentially controversial deletions of article content. I'd be happy to help so far as I can with any questions you may have. RJASE1 Talk 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
These pictures are "potentially controversial". Removal of them is making the article less controversial, not more. BTW - founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, removed some picture without "gaining consensus". He has done right thing, because serious encyclopedia is really not the place for pornography. And I am going to do right thing too. :-) Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You should be making your arguments on the talk pages of the affected articles, not to me. RJASE1 Talk 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm writing here, because you've accused me of vandalism and censorship, and I believe your accusations are baseless. I am only concerned with overall quality of Wikipedia as serious encyclopedia. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what else I can do besides cite the policies regarding images of this type. Like I said, I really couldn't care less about the images themselves, but unilateral edits of the type you are making lead to edit wars. As I said above, the guidelines for these kinds of images are currently being discussed here, and I'm sure your input would be welcome. In the meantime, please don't engage in disruptive editing. RJASE1 Talk 03:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One more example of removing picture (even not photo!) from Wikipedia by Jimbo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=next&oldid=10208889 . I think it was very good decision -- pictures in autofellatio article are really not necessary. Now, there is even pornographic photo in this article (but not inline). Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ejaculation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. RJASE1 Talk 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you've definitely broken 3RR rule. Please, report yourself to authorities ;-). Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) My mistake. You are very carefull player... Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - why?

Could someone tell me why was I blocked indefinitely? Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you as an account used solely to disrupt Wikipedia.

  • First, Wikipedia is not censored, so the images you removed actually censored the articles
    • Study carefully history of both articles, study carefully talk pages of both articles -- THERE IS NO CONSENSUS to keep these images, especially inline.
  • Second, based on your use of "For Brian Peppers" in the original edits of the pages, I have come to the conclusion that you are here to disrupt because it was said that the article would be undeleted, which it will not.
    • My behaviour was not disruptive. Adding controversial images to the articles is disruptive. (Added:) "For Brian Peppers" was in only two edit summaries, not in the edits itself.
  • Third, you appear to be lying about either your knowledge of Wikipedia or the English language.
    • I didn't say a word about my knowledge of Wikipedia. And I am not native English speaker, really. But I'm happy that you think otherwise, I guess my English is improving. :-)

All three of these lead to your block. If you feel that you should be unblocked so you may contribute constructively, please use {{unblock}}. However, if you abuse this, this page will be locked from editting and you will not be able to edit under this name.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "see my explanatiion above"

Decline reason: "The "Brian Peppers" comment clearly show that you are an insider to a long-standing organised effort to disrupt Wikipedia. Or for what other reason did it occur to you to throw that name around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

BTW - what does "YTMND" mean (given in the reason of block)??? Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

YTMND is an internet community. I've posted about your block at WP:AN; hopefully someone will see fit to lessen your block from indefinite. However, Ryulong is right; edit warring is unacceptable, and Wikipedia is not censored. Hope that helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. Part Deux 09:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

I have unprotected this user talk page. You may now edit it, but if you abuse it, again, it will be reprotected. Just stop making new sockpuppets, already.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't abused my talk page before, you have fully protected it with violation of Wikipedia's policies.
Second thing -- I am still unjustly blocked, so I cannot promise that I will comply with your demand regarding stopping creating socks... First of all explain me what policy warranted indefinite block of this user account. I cannot see policy "Don't put 'For Brian Peppers' in edit summary, because we will block you indefinitely" anywhere... Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You are blocked for disrupting Wikipedia by performing edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. However, because you made these edits on the day on which (as WikiTruth puts it) "God King Jimbo decreed" that the deletion on the article on the internet meme Brian Peppers was to be discussed, and we were receiving a shitload of vandalism regarding the individual and "Brian Peppers Day", you were indefinitely blocked. As I said, I was not going to block you (originally) but give you a message concerning WP:NOT#CENSOR. However, seeing the "For Brian Peppers" edits, I determined that you were an account solely used disrupt the project and not contribute. I see no edits from any of your socks or yourself that don't discuss the use of the image, but just flat out remove it from the relevant article, and then you complain that your account was blocked (either this one or latter ones) and you could not figure out why despite my spelling it out to you each time. So here it goes, again.
This account was blocked for purposefully disrupting the Wikipedia project. The use of "For Brian Peppers" in two edit summaries shows that you were here to cause trouble, as was everyone else involved with "Brian Peppers" on February 21, 2007.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the edits mentioned by you were taken place AFTER you have unjustly blocked me indefinitely, not before. Besides, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS to keep these controversial photos in the articles, especially inline - read talk pages with archives.
"I see no edits from any of your socks or yourself that don't discuss the use of the image, (...)" -- really? How about this one? Of course, it was very quickly removed... Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This account was blocked for purposefully disrupting the Wikipedia project. Where is this alleged "disruption"? Could you point me to it? Because I don't think that removing very controversial photos in situation where is no consensus is "disruptive". Think about it for a while. Consensus should be gained to add some controversial image, not to remove it, because removing controversial image from the article makes it less controversial, not more.
I believe adding so controversial images is disruptive. We are here to build encyclopedia after all. There is no mention about "zero censorship" policy in Five pillars of Wikipedia. First and foremost "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". There is no place for such pornographic photos in any serious encyclopedia and I believe Mr. Jimbo Wales shares this view (see my previous mentions of his edits regarding removal of controversial content).
On the other hand in WP:5 there is sentence "assume good faith on the part of others", but you have blatantly broken it, at least in this edit -- you have baselessly accused me of lying: "you appear to be lying about either your knowledge of Wikipedia or the English language." I've explained it above: I didn't say a word about my knowledge of Wikipedia and I am really not native English speaker. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


""The "Brian Peppers" comment clearly show that you are an insider to a long-standing organised effort to disrupt Wikipedia."

As I wrote before I am not a member of YTMND community, I had no idea about it. Some time ago I was reading article on Wikitruth about Brian Peppers Day. I was editing on 21st Feb. and I was thinking that putting "For Brian Peppers" in just two edits summaries is funny joke. If I knew this will lead to indefinite block I wouldn't have done this, I guess... Anyway, it seems that Wikitruth is right in many cases -- I was blocked indefinitely because just two non-controversial edit summaries!
I am NOT "an insider to a long-standing organised effort to disrupt Wikipedia"! I live in central Europe and my first edit in English Wikipedia was just few months ago. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "See my extensive explanations above."

Decline reason: "You have been and remain blocked for inveterate editwarring about images, ignoring that Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like this, go edit somewhere else. The Brian Peppers issue is irrelevant. — Sandstein 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Another request for unblock

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "How about giving me a second chance? I promise I will not break 3RR rule (I have done it just once, so far). Moreover, from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "(Blocks) should not be used as a punitive measure. (...) 3RR violations — Generally 24 hours in the first instance; longer for repeated or aggravated violations. A notice of the block should be left on the user's talk page." But I was blocked INDEFINITELY after my first 3RR viol.!"

Decline reason: "Hm, then why do we have a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen already? I think not. Go play somewhere else. — Sandstein 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/User_talk%7EGen._von_Klinkerhoffen_943c.html"