User talk:HoffenKlinker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were blocked for trolling and repeatedly continuing your abuse of editting priveleges at controversial topics, such as Ejaculation and other things. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone. As an encyclopedia, it is important to have photographs to illustrate articles. For some articles, this means having pictures of nudity or other acts. As such, you have been blocked for not realizing that this is policy along with your use of "For Brian Peppers" in two of your edit summaries with your first account. That means you have a greater knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia or at least what day it was when you made those edits. Please, if you really want to contribute, don't blatantly say that you are a sockpuppet, and don't repeat the same edits as you have been doing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again -- read talk pages (with archives) of articles in question -- there is no consensus to keep this images, especially inline.
Next thing -- "if you really want to contribute, don't blatantly say that you are a sockpuppet" -- why shouldn't I say this? I want to be sincere.
Why do you repeatedly revert my edits? The following edits were not vandalism, but you've reverted them:
and on my talk page:
You've also removed my user page... Why? You could add template on the top, without removing my page...
This is also very funny... Let's see: "using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended" - but the problem is you blocked my first account (Gen. von Klinkerhoffen) with violation of Wikipedia's policies. You blocked it indefinitely. So, in this case block or ban couldn't be extended more. HoffenKlinker 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You are beyond the point where I can assume good faith with you. I was going to with your first account, with practically all of the text I put above, until I saw your references to the YTMND trolling for Wednesday. It was then that I felt you were trolling Wikipedia, and with each successive edit (to archives and closed discussions) you only continue to do this.
And that only applies to the original account. Any subsequent accounts are blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, your going on WikiTruth and proliferating the bullshit that went on with "Brian Peppers Day" as I now see from that edit summary really shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I had no idea about YTMND community (or whatever it is) and their disruptive efforts; my only source of info about "Brian Peppers Day" was article on Wikitruth. I think that putting "For Brian Peppers" in just two edit summaries doesn't warrant indefinite ban, but I guess you disagree... Anyway, I am in a good mood today, so let's compromise. I will promise that:
  • I will not be mentioning "Brian Peppers Day" on Wikipedia
  • I will drop the issue with removing (inaproppriate IMO) images in Ejaculation and Pearl necklace (sexuality) articles for at least month
  • I will not report/mention anywhere your (IMO unjust) block for me.
What I expect from you:
  • you will lessen indefinite block on my first account, i.e. User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen to, let's say, 1 week or few days (or nothing at all); I will wait patiently to its expiry (please, put "mistake" or some other descriptive message in the reason of unblocking)
  • you will unprotect my talk page (i.e. User talk:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen) - I will clean it or re-add my explanation removed here; the choice is yours, tell me, what option is better for you, but I want either to re-add my original message or clean talk page completely
  • you will let me to revert this change.
So, here is my offer. Tell me, what is your choice. I really don't want to create another user account, but, well, it depends on you now... HoffenKlinker 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting, Ryulong. Please, don't ignore my proposition. HoffenKlinker 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That deafening silence you are getting from Ryūlóng appears to mean "no".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


One more thing: I think User:RJASE1 violated WP:3RR rule -- check history of "ejaculation" article on 21st Feb. Here are reverts in question:
He has also made some reverts on 19th and 20th Feb., but I will not put details here - check history by yourself. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I copied the part above from your previous exploits, because I felt it needed to be addressed in a positive manner. Please look at WP:3RR#Exceptions very closely. There are two exceptions which apply in this case:
Reverting simple and obvious vandalism - you appear to have vandalized that article.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it was definitely not "simple and obvious vandalism" -- there was no consensus to keep this image, especially inline. It was removed almost constantly since the beginning (i.e. since it has appeared in the article; check history [added:] and talk page (with archives)). HoffenKlinker 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Evidently, RJASE1 determined that it was vandalism, and I agree. Read the edit summaries:
Reverted 1 edit by Gen. von Klinkerhoffen to last revision by Prolog. TWINKLE
Reverted 1 edit by Gen. von Klinkerhoffen identified as vandalism to last revision by RJASE1. TWINKLE
Reverted 1 edit by Gen. von Klinkerhoffen identified as vandalism to last revision by Prolog. TWINKLE
Reverted 1 edit by 67.176.97.243 identified as vandalism to last revision by Ryulong. TWINKLE
Where was the consensus to remove the inline image that was put back almost constantly since the beginning (i.e. since it appeared in the article), hmm?  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
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. HoffenKlinker 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Reverting actions performed by banned users. - you appear to have been banned.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not banned at this time. Check carefully history of my contributions and all dates. HoffenKlinker 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The timing of the ban is irrelevant. The ban just provides additional justification ex post facto for the actions of RJASE1 in reverting censorship vandalism to article Ejaculation on February 21, 2007.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"reverting censorship vandalism" - it was NOT vandalism. I've done the right thing. Serious encyclopedia is not the place to host pornography. I believe Mr. Jimbo Wales shares this view. See e.g. these edits: [5], [6] and [7].
Thanks for your time and have a nice day. HoffenKlinker 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)