Gen. Klinker Hoffen

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. 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.

Put your message below, please.

---

March 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. —dgies^t_c 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, removed some picture from Creampie (sexual act) before, without discussing and gaining consensus. He has done right thing in my opinion, because serious encyclopedia is really not the place for pornography. (BTW - you can see this picture here; NSFW!).

So, do you want to call Jimbo's action "censoring"? It was right and reasonable move, not "censoring". My removals is not "censorship", too. Gen. Klinker Hoffen 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your reasoning "there is a photo of (user generated) semen in Semen and neck in Neck (although not woman's), so this image is not strictly necessary" doesn't make sense. By that logic since we have a picture of bread and a picture of cheese, we don't really need a picture of pizza. I note you have been blocked for this exact same behavior under two previous aliases. Wikipedia is run on consensus, and consensus is the pic stays. If you keep reverting you will get blocked again. —dgies^t_c 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Picture of pizza is not controversial, in contrast to picture of "pearl necklace". I hope you see the difference.

  And I will be blocked again anyway, because I am sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user. Gen. Klinker Hoffen 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and BTW -- I see this on Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality):

There is no consensus here to have the picture in-line. Unless consensus is established one way or another then the prior consensus to use limkimage should be maintained.(...)

So, there is no consensus to keep this image, especially inline. Gen. Klinker Hoffen 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are happy now, Dgies. It is easier to report me than to discuss, isn't it? Gen. Klinker Hoffen 00:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have had 10 sockpuppet accounts blocked for 3RRing suggests that discussion with you is unlikely to be productive. —dgies^t_c 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First request for unblock

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. Klinker Hoffen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My first account was has been blocked unjustly. See my extensive explanation on talk page of my first account. Thanks.

Decline reason:

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you are not permitted to set up new accounts. That you continue to violate Wikipedia policy makes it all but assured that you will not be unblocked. We do not unblock people who continue to deliberately violate our rules and policies. — Yamla 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

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.