User talk:PrincessMint

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Is this right?PrincessMint (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a concern about the content of the article, you need to discuss it on the talk page. I could have very easily blocked you for this edit for violation of the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet you've said nothing to Erigu. Discussion is impossible. I tried. Erigu just says "Don't listen to (user). They're a sockpuppet.". And then the discussion ends. Look at his talk page. You want proof? I'll even show you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erigu#Re:_Higurashi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umineko_no_Naku_Koro_ni#Is_this_a_horror_game.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umineko_no_Naku_Koro_ni#Spoilers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wild_Arms_(series)#3rd_party_neutral_opinion

Noticing a pattern?PrincessMint (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Haunting Ground

Yes, you're signing fine now. Your source does not say that the game was intended as a sequel, all it does is compare how similar they are, if I am wrong, please tell me what paragraph states it was originaly going to be a sequel, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not my source. Other people posted sources though. Erigu just likes to harass people. I doubt he's ever even played the game, yet he believes he has the right to decide what deserves to be in the article and what doesn't. He's doing the same thing on a bunch of other articles. The worst example, is the Wild ARMs articles. He admits he's never played the game, it seems, yet made a bunch of edits to the article, going against Wiki's rules. And no one can fix it, because he'll do what he did with me-accuse them of being a sockpuppet, then go around telling everyone else. It's really irritating.PrincessMint (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your edit summary on your last revision, note that Softpedia is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is insane. Oh, and why am I the only one who got a warning? What about Erigu? What about the other people who were involved in the edit war? And look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erigu#Re:_Higurashi

Seriously, I'm fed up. I came here to edit, and then this guy comes and accuses me of being a sockpuppet. He messed with all my edits using whatever excuse he can find, refuses to discuss or listen to reason, and is just generally offensive. I do not appreciate him going around telling people I'm a sockpuppet or a banned user, nor do I appreciate his nasty remarks. If you're an admin, shouldn't you be doing something about this? This is out of control, and yet I'm the one getting the warning?PrincessMint (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, Please, stop editing mainspace articles intill this is resolved, I don't want you to get yourself a block, but we can't assume good faith forever, just have some patience, and we can sort this out, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible. Don't you see what's happening here? There were three other users involved in the edit wars he mentioned, so why am I the only one who got a warning? They have all been downright nasty, and they certainly have not been assuming good faith. Erigu has accused me or sockpuppetry and is telling everyone that's true and to undo my edits. These people have even admitted my edits are right, yet still push their own edits, just to bother me. They've followed me to other articles as well. Someone needs to tell THEM to stop, not me. I'm not the one refusing discussion, but Erigu is not capable of such things. He either makes sockpuppet accusations or lies. And note that that admin didn't bother to respond here.PrincessMint (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I shouldn't bother trying to talk to C.Fred ‎or Erigu again as they both appear to be offline. So lets settle this: if you ever violate the 3 revert rule again, you are likely to be blocked, if you disagree wiht someone, don't just revert their edits, instead, try and have a sensible discussion, if you can provide reliable sources (anything other then softpedia, the others seem to have a problem with that website ^^) for Hunting groud originally being a sequel, I'd be more then happy to add that in myself and would stand by that edit, but only if you provide a reliable source, and stop edit warring, what do you think? Cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? Stop telling me these things. I'm not the problem. Who was it that undid edits without any discussion? Erigu and the others. They aren't interested in discussion. They know they're wrong, but they just don't care. Erigu has been at this for over a year now. And you just undid my Haunting Ground edit, encouraging me to break the rules, even though I provided two new sources. If you truly want to help, you can't avoid talking to the people creating the problem. They are the ones against any discussion, who are just reverting edits for fun.PrincessMint (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of your last 50 edits, there have not been any to article Talk pages. That certainly qualifies as a lack of discussion.

Regarding the lack of warnings to other editors, in the one article I saw, Erigu stopped short of violating 3RR. He's also a more established editor and knows full well the restrictions of things like 3RR. (Truth be told, if anything, rather than keep reverting your changes with the sockpuppet comment in the edit summary, he should've come out and made the accusation on your user talk page. Also, the more you protest, the more I see the pattern that I think he sees.) At any rate, don't assume that administrators aren't watching the conduct of all parties involved. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Haunting Ground. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Nationmaster.com just parroted the Wikipedia article; a circular source is not allowed. The Helium article is borderline. Were there a citation or bibliography in the article, I'd let it go. Again, the venue for discussion at this point is Talk:Haunting Ground, not an edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Erigu has reverted my Haunting Ground edits 4 times, which is more than three. Both he and Juchachi have undone my List of Higurashi Characters edits four times. And 29Dupe did the same one the Higurashi no Naku Koro ni page. That aside, they all, especially Erigu, are being hostile towards me. So, I'm not supposed to protest his false accustions and rude behavior? And I'm the one seeing a pattern here. This is what Erigu does. He irritates editors until they defend themselves, so that they look like the bad guys. Just check out his actions towards other users he has made accusations against. I'm not the one who needs to start discussing-they are. I showed you in the links above, Erigu refuses to discuss. Heck, he joins ongoing discussions just to say someone is a sockpuppet and stop all discussion.PrincessMint (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And borderline should be enough. As it is, it seems like there's no source that's acceptable, regardless of what it is.PrincessMint (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Higurashi Rei

As I may be one of the "others" you're referring to, for Higurashi no Naku Koro ni case, please see and discuss in the talk page. —29th ((☎)) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of SyberiaWinx/Fragments of Jade. Again. The same offer to set this all side remains. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What?! How am I banned? This is truly unbelievable. Erigu lies and harasses me, and I get in trouble?! I don't deserved to be blocked, since I'm not a sockpuppet, and there is no proof that says otherwise. It's unfair that all it takes is Erigu insisting someone's a sockpuppet for them to get blocked! I looked it up-there's not even a user named SyberiaWinx here, so how the heck am I a sockpuppet of her? And what's all this about a bloody offer?!

Decline reason:

Obvious sock of FoJ/SW. I think we're done wasting our time here. 40 lashes (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2009 (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.

Same editing pattern. Same article interests (Clock Tower and Higurashi are SW's established interests, with some of SW's socks being named after characters/things/etc.). Doesn't indent replies. Tends to claim "official sources" back her up, citing front pages of official sites or nothing. Effeminate name from Japanese pop culture. "No proof that I'm a sockpuppet!"

There's too much quacking here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. There's no user named SyberiaWinx, so would you care to explain how I could have anything in common with them? Even if it were a banned uers, I can see that their user page would still exist. Since there's no user by that name, I can't comment on what you said about "editing pattern", as I don't know what hers is. Same article interests? I've never played Clock Tower, just Haunting Ground. Those games are hard to find these days. And so I like When They Cry, that hardly makes me a sockpuppet. Lots of people like it. And plenty of people have usernames related to things or characters. But for the record, my name doesn't come from anything but my own imagination, and I certainly don't see how you can claim it's fron Japanese pop-culture. What the heck is identing? I'm still a new user, so I can't pick up everything in one day, especially when I've got all this forced on my plate. It took me forever just to figure out I was supposed to sign talk page messages! And who wouldn't say official sources back them up?! Higurashi Rei's official site does say it was aired on Pay Per View. However, you can't link directly to an individual news entry, and there are a lot of them, so I told the person to just search for PPV. It's easy, with the "Find a Word on This Page" feature. So I said there was no proof I'm a sockpuppet. There isn't. What, was I supposed to just let Erigu go around telling people that? It's a lie!PrincessMint (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SyberiaWinx is the off-wiki user name that Erigu mentioned that was linked to the Fragments of Jade/WhiteKnightLeo/etc. sockmaster. It's as good a name as any, and it doesn't really matter if you are or aren't SyberiaWinx, since you are clearly Fragments of Jade et al. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that I'm not. And wow, that really says a lot about you, doesn't it? You have no problem damaging the reputation of some girl, based on something Erigu says? I hope this SyberiaWinx person actually joins Wiki one day and gives you what-for in return for slandering her. As an admin, isn't it your job to stop things like that and this from happening? Look at the claims you are making! Those things make me a sockpuppet? Any username can be tied to something if you try hard enough. My name could be "Edward05", and I bet you and Erigu would say, "Oh, well the previous sockpuppets had Japanese pop-culture names, and Edward is a character from the anime Fullmetal Alchemist". There's no way for anyone to avoid being labelled a sockpuppet once they run into Erigu. He finds someone suitable, finds random connections, harasses them, and then some admin bans them without a proper investigation. It's sad when people that are supposed to be making sure bad things don't happen not only let them happen, but cause them to.PrincessMint (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My evidence is circumstantial, yes, and no single part of it is damning on its own. It's a body of related circumstantial evidence. As before, my offer to unblock and set aside this whole sockpuppetry nonsense remains if you come clean, disengage from Erigu (and if he harasses you after that, he and I will have a chat), and stop edit warring.

Incidentally, Erigu pointed out here where PM's name is likely from, and it makes sense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, so I don't see how this offer is supposed to appeal to me at all. And have you ever noticed that your circumstamtial evidence could easily be applied to anyone? Take Erigu, for example. He's edited the Haunting Ground and When They Cry pages, but never for anything other than to undo other people's edits... His name could be linked to effeminate Japanese pop-culture, as could any name. And his general behavior is hostile.

Though your offer doesn't benefit me at all, I'm inclined to point out a few things. Your conditions. First, you mention not engaging Erigu. I've looked at a few of the other accused sock puppets, but the only one doing any engaging seems to be him. All I did was edit the Haunting Ground page, and suddenly, I'm a sockpuppet. How many of the other accused parties are the same? An edit is made on a page Erigu is uknowingly monitoring, Erigu decides to undo that edit without any given reason, and without any discussion, Erigu decides that person is a sockpuppet. He finds little things to connect the accused with another alleged sockpuppet, then requests a checkuser. And then, he goes around undoing that person's edits and telling anyone involved with them that they are a sockpuppet, despite it just being something he believes. And yet, you want to tell other people to stop engaging? How about you tell Erigu to stop getting on people just for editing? He knows all the rule loopholes, and he will undo any edit he can, claiming it is unsourced or false, regardless of whether or not he has actually played the game, watched the show, etc. He acts like he knows everything and has the right to decides what should or should not be on a page, and that is just wrong.

Erigu is the problem here, not everyone else. Why don't you try it out yourself? I dare you. Make a new account and make a true but unsourced edit to a page you know Erigu frequents. See how fast you're told you're a sockpuppet.PrincessMint (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Because if I was to do that, I would indeed be a sockpuppet :) Joe Taliban (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't deserve to be blocked! I'm not a sockpuppet! There is no SyberiaWinx on this site, either. And yet, all the admins are claiming otherwise as well. Just who is this Erigu that all the admins will do whatever he wants?!

Decline reason:

No. Do not request unblock again, or I will lock this page. 40 lashes (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What the heck else am I supposed to do?! I'm being falsely accused of being a sockpuppet because the name "Mint" can be connected to Japanese pop-culture, and because I like a certain game! You didn't even consider my unblock request! You just claimed I was a sockpuppet, which I'm not!

Decline reason:

Per previous requests. The evidence suggests that you are a sockpuppet. Joe Taliban (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2009 (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.