KaseyVincent
|
The article Dazzle Vision has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No independent reliable sources used, no apparent/sufficient notability
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
ha edit
"I'm very often completely nocturnal". Bro, you're copying me. And what do you think of as "nocturnal"? It's not the same as staying up late ;p — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I took that from you but I am. I love the night and the taking late night walks through the forest. I usually am up 20 hours a day, and I spend most of my "awake" time at night. Sorry if you thought I was trying to copy you lol. KaseyVincent (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Invitation edit
|
Hello! KaseyVincent,
welcome to the English Wikipedia! I’d like to invite you to join other new editors and friendly hosts at the Teahouse. There you can meet people, ask questions and learn more about the English Wikipedia. Please take a look! You can also ask me any questions about editing—just click on the green "(talk)" link. Tony (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
|
April 2012 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Shocking Loud Voice with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Velella Velella Talk 09:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok I will do. The photo was removed so I took it down because of that. I didn't want that cluttering up the talk page. KaseyVincent (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! edit
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! edit
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sarah (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! edit
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sarah (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
KaseyVincent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not been involved in any sock puppetry. I have also done nothing wrong and have not been apart of any vandalism. I have conducted myself in a professional manner and made positive contributions to Wikipedia. Just because one person believes that I have participated in Sock Puppetry is unlawful and unneeded given my record. I will be more than welcome to discuss this current situation to come to an agreement. I just want to be reestablished as a user. Thank You for your time.
Decline reason:
Checkuser shows that you've voted in an AFD multiple times, which is against Wikipedia policies. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:43, 2 April 2012 (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.
- There were multiple votes on the same AFD from your computer - this isn't simply a matter of sharing an IP address, but the actual computer. You will need to provide a plausible explanation to this if you want to be unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Well would you please help me accomplish that task. I do not share a computer, I go in between my computer and my IPhone. Your help on the current situation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you KaseyVincent (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that the user that I am being accused of being has not been apart of Wikipedia since 2009. Why all of a sudden would I be associated with this user. I am just here to provide use to Wikipedia and have not been apart of any vandalism or knowingly done wrong. I have conducted myself in a professional manner. I'm kind of cuirious about the situation. I noticed that their was an edit war under Defird's page and can't help but to think this is more of a accusation made under dislike of someone towards revamping a page. KaseyVincent (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I do however want to mention that I did leave my computer unattended so maybe someone got on and made comments or changes, of course I do not believe that would be the situation. I do live with others and sometimes we do share computers. I am merely mentioning this cause it could be a plausible cause. KaseyVincent (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow I just contradicted myself, that isn't really helping my cause, but please trust me, I did not do anything wrong knowingly and should not be blocked. KaseyVincent (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is a good user being blocked? edit
KaseyVincent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I haven't done anything knowingly wrong. I am usually a good person and always willing to make compromises as seen om my page Dazzle Vision. I really worked hard and to be accused of being someone completely different from who I am is wrong and I feel that this block was too harsh/ I only got involved with a page Deford and was trying to make a simple suggestion but It was taken wrong and apparently I made several post on the pages AFD site under a different user or IP address. I did not know that I commuted such an act. I do not share a computer with others, but living with a few people it does happen. I am assuming that maybe my roommate made a change or was arguing in my favor, but I did not do anything intentionally wrong. I am sorry for the mess that my actions have cause. I do want you to note that I have made and maintained a profession attitude and manner while working on Wikipedia's projects. I have never commuted an act of vandalism as the user I am accused of being has. I am also the only one running the Wikipedia article Dazzle Vision, and I was planning on revamping the page to meet Wikipedia's criteria. I am only mentioning this since I am the only user that has done and found research on the article. Please help me fix this problem. I have done nothing wrong and I think that I deserve to be reinstated. I also have not met the criteria other than being accused of sock puppetry to being blocked. I haven't damage or caused a disruption to Wikipedia, handled situation in a threatening manner, or exhibited disruptive behavior. Thank you for your time, KaseyVincent (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deford, Michigan is pretty obvious even without checkuser confirmation that it was coming from the same computer, and your claim that it was your housemate is hard to believe (please see WP:BROTHER). Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (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.
KaseyVincent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I haven't done anything knowingly wrong. I am usually a good person and always willing to make compromises as seen om my page Dazzle Vision. I really worked hard and to be accused of being someone completely different from who I am is wrong and I feel that this block was too harsh/ I only got involved with a page Deford and was trying to make a simple suggestion but It was taken wrong and apparently I made several post on the pages AFD site under a different user or IP address. I did not know that I commuted such an act. I do not share a computer with others, but living with a few people it does happen. I am assuming that maybe my roommate made a change or was arguing in my favor, but I did not do anything intentionally wrong. I am sorry for the mess that my actions have cause. I do want you to note that I have made and maintained a profession attitude and manner while working on Wikipedia's projects. I have never commuted an act of vandalism as the user I am accused of being has. I am also the only one running the Wikipedia article Dazzle Vision, and I was planning on revamping the page to meet Wikipedia's criteria. I am only mentioning this since I am the only user that has done and found research on the article. Please help me fix this problem. I have done nothing wrong and I think that I deserve to be reinstated. I also have not met the criteria other than being accused of sock puppetry to being blocked. I haven't damage or caused a disruption to Wikipedia, handled situation in a threatening manner, or exhibited disruptive behavior. Thank you for your time, KaseyVincent (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deford, Michigan is pretty obvious even without checkuser confirmation that it was coming from the same computer, and your claim that it was your housemate is hard to believe (please see WP:BROTHER). (Whatever makes you think that putting up the exact same request twice will lead to a different result?) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (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.
What can a Good user do to be unblocked? I've done nothing knowing wrong.
Final Request edit
KaseyVincent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not committed any such act as sock puppetry and have not done anything that is disruptive and harmful towards Wikipedia or its users. I believe that the user who blocked me didn't want anymore issues with his article. He blocked me under the superstition that I was conspiring or am a user by the name of Emily Bernette. I also know I am being blocked for apparently posting multiple times to AFD page. I have gave a realistic reason on what could of happen but I don't know if I did, so the argument itself falls apart. I understand that I did something wrong by putting the article up for deletion instead of holding a discussion on merging it. I am a good user who has not caused vandalism, I actually revert it, and always conducts myself in proper manner. Yes, I see that It looks like I used multiple accounts on the AFD page, but I did not do anything knowingly wrong and do not know how it happen. I can ensure you that if I got reinstated I, which always did, would continue to provided a useful and nondestructive service like other here have shown. This is my final request to be reinstated, I have, in past request, provided details on what I think might have caused the problem, but have amply been ignored. I plea that you will allow this user to rejoin the Wikipedia community. I was in a middle of revamping my own contribution to the Wikipedia community, and without my knowledge and support I have behind the page itself, it will sit there without the proper work need to be done on it. I implore to look at my overall record here on the site. I'm always willing to listen to others, not shun them away, and I work hard on doing what is right. I hate to see that a good editor like me is being blocked for one mistake that I didn't even know commit. Thank you for your time. KaseyVincent (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The thing is, WP:CHECKUSER has been used and it has been confirmed that the comments at the AFD in question came from the same computer. Your claim that it is apparently a big coincidence that someone else using the same computer just happened to log in to Wikipedia and just happened to be interested in the exact same discussion as you were is a bit too much to swallow. Despite the pleas from other users below I am declining this request because I believe, as the other reviewing admins did, that you know more than you are letting on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2012 (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 edit was made from the same machine as you used for editing and I find your chances to be unblocked minimal while you continue to provide explanations like those above. I was actually going to decline this last request and revoke your ability to post further requsests but my colleague's plea below made me stop. So, Kacey, - last chance: can you explain honestly what's going on? Max Semenik (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly do not know why there were multiple post under my computer. I know that because of that, I know very well the very vague chances I have of being reinstated. I've been doing some research and know that not many people who are suspected to be sock puppets are reinstated. As I said below, I asked to see if someone did get on my computer, but no one said that they did so I am without explanation of what happen. Since the IP address is the same and the post were coming from my computer. I do not know what to tell you. What I do know is that if I got reinstated I would continue to provide a service to Wikipedia as my fellow colleagues have described. I haven't knowing done anything wrong, but because of this sites policies I find my self in between a rock and a hard place. I know my explanation isn't much but I am being honest and sincere. With the give evidence I wouldn't blame you for declining my block removal, but I do hope you will see past this mishap and my poor explanation and give me a second chance. Thank you for your time. KaseyVincent (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- While I disagree with your ruling, Beeblebrox, I have told you all my knowledge about the issue. If you feel that way then you do. So This will be last time on this site. KaseyVincent (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Kasey's blocking edit
Hi everyone. I stopped by this page to see how Kasey was doing in regards to her recent edits. As we had been working with her at the Teahouse. I was really disappointed to see that she was being told that she was a sockpuppet. I know that it won't probably matter, and I'm no admin, but, I have reported a few socks in my day, and I don't think that Kasey was intentionally evading or trying to be sneaky. Sometimes new users make new accounts. Regardless of the drama, I think allowing Kasey back to Wikipedia can only allow her to understand any mistakes made, and allow her to continue to grow as an editor. I hope this will be considered. Thanks folks! Sarah (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I echo Sarah's concern here. Several editors were working with Kasey around the time she was blocked, and she gave every indication of GF. I do not believe she did anything knowingly wrong, and would like to see her continue as a Wikipedian. If we can get Kasey unblocked, and she is willing to stick around despite all the drama, I'm willing to personally help her continue contributing productively in any way I can. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your support. I have done some research and found out that several users are blocked as sock puppetry under the user Emily Bernette. They all seemed to have has something to do with the article Deford, Michigan so under the "quack like a duck" policy I do see why they are assuming that I am apart of this ring. I also check on the AFD page and did see that their we multiple edits under an IP address and If it is mine, I am susceptible to the sock puppetry block. I didn't find any of my roommates that said they did it, so therefore I have no idea why that might of happen so as a responsible user I have to accept the punishment if my block is not revoked. I would love to continue on my work here and can only hope that I admin dose notice my hard work and understand the mishap that happen, but if not, It was really nice working with you guys. Thank you once again for all your support and help with not only my articles but my block process. KaseyVincent (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Dazzle Vision Page edit
Since I will be indefinitely blocked, I would like to provided information about my page Dazzle Vision. I have found a couple more sources and would like them to be used in the article. I have provided the links [1] and [2] here with one being Dazzle Vision's profile on Oricon and it's only album to chart. It was nice working with everyone and I'll see you in the future If I ever get reinstated. Thank you for your time. KaseyVincent (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I will be back edit
Looking into Wikipedia's polices, I will no longer participate in the community for six months,the standard offer, in hope that my block will be revoked. "Its not more of a goodbye as it is a see you later" KaseyVincent (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would argue that the standard offer does not apply as you already had your second chance with this account. You blew the second when you repeated the same actions as Emily Bernette (talk · contribs) and outed yourself with yet another attempt to delete Deford, Michigan. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not the user who wronged you and while I do believe a block should be placed on me for the actions that happen without my knowledge and control, I do not believe I should fall under the issues of a completely unrelated user. I'm sorry for the trouble you have had on the page but I don't think I should be blamed for another users isses. I understand the under the "Quack like a duck" policy that I did do actions similar to that user but I am in no way related to that user. I have only proposed what I thought was right for the page and changed my mind after submitting the article for deletion to have it instead merged. I did not copy that users actions in any way as to other than wanting to delete the page outright, which I changed my mind. I can ensure you that I am a completely different user than Emily Bernette and am not apart of that sock puppetry and meat puppetry ring. KaseyVincent (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 4 edit
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Dazzle Vision (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Metalica
- Kirari (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Japanese
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Second Dazzle Vision Audio Sample.ogg edit
Thanks for uploading File:The Second Dazzle Vision Audio Sample.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)