User talk:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen/Archive 1

February 2007[edit]

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)[reply]

Serious encyclopedia is not the place to host pornography. Thank you. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See my response below. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ejaculation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Making Wikipedia better (i.e. removing pornography) is not vandalizing. Thank you. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely - why?[edit]

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

Block[edit]

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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

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)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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)[reply]

(Three comments added here by Gen. von Klinkerhoffen have been removed by Ryulong.) Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

""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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

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)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another request for unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

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)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note[edit]

After discussing with this user off wiki I am going to unprotect this page. It should be known that the socks were made after the first indef block of this main account. (note this account has only one block, and that is indef). There were no socks prior to the indef block. In any case, I feel it is a good idea now that its been a while to allow Gen. von Klinkerhoffen to request an {{unblock}} vie the usual means. I'd lean towards giving him a second chance. To me it looks like a major misunderstanding. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving me a second chance. I really appreciate this. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be very apologetic and feel hat this would be a good situation in which to assume good faith. Plus, we can always reblock if needed. John Reaves (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please check your block log linked below. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead. We cannot unblock you otherwise.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen/Archive_1 (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock)
Reason for unblocking:

First of all, I want to apologize for use of "For Brian Peppers" in two edit summaries. I didn't realize at the time that there was a lot of vandalism from users using this edit summary. It seems that it was not very smart move from my side.
I was removing only two pictures: one from Ejaculation and one from Pearl necklace (sexuality). First picture is no longer available (it has been removed with the comment: "Picture uploaded by a low-activity user, age unclear, may trigger record keeping. Safer without, as we have unambiguously unproblematic images which will do instead."), in the case of second picture there wasn't (and still isn't) clear consensus to keep this image. Nevertheless, I read one more time WP:CENSOR and I am NOT going to remove controversial photos anymore. Actually, I am even not going to edit talk pages of sexuality-related articles in the near future.
I still believe that Ryulong's (blocking admin and admin who requested "community" ban for me) behaviour was vindictive and not fair, but I will not put all details here - if I get unblocked, I want to do WP:AGF and forget about the whole, hmm, "misunderstanding".

Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:

{{unblock reviewed|1=First of all, I want to apologize for use of "For Brian Peppers" in two edit summaries. I didn't realize at the time that there was a lot of vandalism from users using this edit summary. It seems that it was not very smart move from my side.

I was removing only two pictures: one from Ejaculation and one from Pearl necklace (sexuality). First picture is no longer available (it has been removed with the comment: "Picture uploaded by a low-activity user, age unclear, may trigger record keeping. Safer without, as we have unambiguously unproblematic images which will do instead."), in the case of second picture there wasn't (and still isn't) clear consensus to keep this image. Nevertheless, I read one more time WP:CENSOR and I am NOT going to remove controversial photos anymore. Actually, I am even not going to edit talk pages of sexuality-related articles in the near future. I still believe that Ryulong's (blocking admin and admin who requested "community" ban for me) behaviour was vindictive and not fair, but I will not put all details here - if I get unblocked, I want to do WP:AGF and forget about the whole, hmm, "misunderstanding".|decline=reason — ~~~~}}

{{subst:Request accepted|reason}}

Ok, may I ask one question, do you understand that socking to get around a block is not a good idea? Please read our policy on socks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand it. I am not going to use socks again in case of unjust block, but to use other means (like contacting some admin via e-mail or IRC). Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): See here -->permilink Request handled by: —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't realize at the time that there was a lot of vandalism from users using this edit summary" That is a total lie. You told me you did it because you knew that February 21 was "Brian Peppers Day" after you told me you read it on WikiTruth.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

To prove that I can be constructive WP contributor I created the following new article (well, stub), about useful program called ngrep. Text is borrowed from the description in Debian project (Debian is GPLed), which is in turn borrowed from the home page of the program, AFAICT. I hope it is permissible... Image is, of course, no available -- I can create one and upload, when someone unblock me. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a copyright violation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Ngrep article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Teke 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

What to do with nonsensical articles like this one? Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it for speedy deletion and an admin will take care of it ASAP. The instructions are here. I'll get that one for you in the meantime. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Gracenotes^T § 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]