User talk:Nerovingian

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not pretended to be anyone else or done any vandalism or negative edits. Having a similar username should not be enough reason to be banned permanently from editing. Please reconsider.

Decline reason:

Given that there has been nothing but vandalism on the IP you are editing from -- since 2006 -- and that that IP has been blocked for vandalism a half dozen times, I don't see any reason to believe this username would behave any differently from the IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:48, 24 January 2012 (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.

Why are you requesting unblocking now, six years after the original block? TN X Man 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)True, and both the blocking admin and the account you are assumed to be impersonating (User:Merovingian) have ceased their editing of this project. However, I do want to make clear that you are not permanently banned. At any time you could create a new account and edit. Why are you so attached to this username that you come back after almost 6 years and request that it be unblocked? Syrthiss (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you be as defensive of your username if it wasn't chosen specifically to impersonate someone? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if I had any history on the site and then found the username blocked. For all intents and purposes, Curps block is the same as if Nerovingian had requested the username and been denied it upon registration. If I had tried to register Syrthiss and it had refused, I would likely have just gone with whatever it suggested like Syrthiss44255125 or Syrthiss throatwarbler mangrove. I also would likely have complained sometime earlier than 6 years after. We can conjecture all we like, but until Nerovingian replies to Tnxman above that is all it is: conjecture. Syrthiss (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to reclaim my name after 6 years because I finally had something worthwhile to contribute to a page and felt it would benefit the encyclopedia. As for the issue over the ip, I was doing research while student teaching at a High School. With hindsight it is obvious that was a poor choice from which to apply for an unblock. Nevertheless, I do not believe the crimes of a school district should prevent me from having editing privileges. I am trying to reclaim my username because I have built up my entire online identity around Nerovigian. Incidentally, Merovingian, the name that apparently prevents me from being unblocked has been deleted and is no longer around. Nerovingian (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have answered the criticisms of those above me and still feel my name should be unlocked. There is not limitations of statues on username use and how long it has been since I was blocked is not relevant. Nerovingian (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This account had no edits whatsoever when it was blocked solely for a similar username to an existing user. That user is no longer active, so the only logged reason for the original block is no longer relevant. While I agree the situation is odd and that such appeals almost always turn out to be from trolls, this user has done nothing other than act in a manner which has got us all on edge simply because it is a tactic experienced admins have seen before. But that is not enough to rationalize an indefinite block when the primary reason for that block is no longer valid. If this user is a high school student editing from the same IP as six years ago obviously there is another issue in real life, but that is not our concern. It is what a user has done on-wiki that determines whether or not a block is warranted, and it has been determined that this user was blocked for a reason that is no longer valid, if indeed it ever was valid in the first place, which to my mind it was not, not enough for an no-warning no-notice block anyway.

Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gauchat

Hi thanks for creating this article. When we translate or borrow from other language wikis it’s a requirement to acknowledge the source. The best way to do this is to include it in your edit summary (e.g. “translated from nl.wiki”) and there’s also a translation template you can add to the talk page. I’ve added it for you. Happy editing and please leave a message on my talk page if you need any help Mccapra (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]