Hello. After renames, it is appropriate for the old username to redirect to the new username. For the U2 speedy, it states This excludes userpages for anonymous users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, and the previous name of a renamed user. The G11 speedy was inappropriate because there was no promotion on the page, it was simply a redirect. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes22:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are right about the exceptions to the U2 speedy, but there is no proof or even sign that Amaury has been renamed from Eugene Krabs. In addition, what I mean by the G11 speedy is that Amaury wanted to promote himself, and that is the reason he created a redirect from a nonexistent user page to his own, and did the same to the corresponding talk page. Anti-draftifier (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but this is the Eugene Krabs rename to Zhang He, not the Eugene Krabs rename to Amaury. Eugene Krabs might have been first renamed to Zhang He, and then to Amaury. If this is the case, could you please send me the second rename? Also, I am sorry for the unneeded and probably annoying repetition. Anti-draftifier (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it looks like that user has been renamed quite few times! Thank you very much for all the proof! Since there is proof, we can definitely keep the redirects, instead of nominating them for deletion. Also, I will not modify your comments again! Anti-draftifier (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
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).
Dear @Ohnoitsjamie, As you already know, I have been confirmed a sockpuppet of @Abladifferentblausername by the CheckUser@Mailer diablo.[1] I apologize for abusively using multiple accounts, but I think I should point out the following: Most edits I have made using this account are useful[2], and the edits to Talk page[3] and Vermissen[4] were not made for the purpose of disruption, but for the purpose of accuracy; that is, to redirect users closer to what they are looking for. For instance, users that are looking for the Vermissen song can get closer to its entry in the Juju (German rapper) article by following the Juju (German rapper)#Singles hyperlink than by following the Juju (German rapper)#Discography hyperlink.
As I see it, the sole reason I got blocked is that I was abusively using multiple accounts, and the accusation of making unconstructive edits using this account is false. I understand that sockpuppetry is taboo on Wikipedia, but, in my opinion, it is fair that I get unblocked because I have changed since I started using this account.
By definition, every edit made with a block-evadingsockpuppet account is abusive. We will not consider an unblock request here, you'll need to make it with your original account. There's almost no chance it'll be granted there at this time, given how recently you were evading your block. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2023 (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.
There's no reason to unblock you if you intend to continue to make disruptive edits. If you create another account to mess with Vermissen, that account will be blocked as well. Additionally, I fail to see how any of the redirect edits you made were useful per WP:NOTBROKEN. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
