User talk:BlackJack
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | I'm nowadays active onSimple Wikipedia, but I still keep a watch on this page. If you want to ask me anything aboutcricket orpostage stamps, I'll be glad to hear from you, and will answer you here. Thank you. |
| On 19 September 2025, this account became inaccessible due to loss of e-mail address, meaning I could not receive a verification code, and was temporarily replaced byUser:BeachBoyJack, which remains a spare account. The BlackJack account was restored next day by the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team (WFTS), by means of a new e-mail address and a temporary password, so I am continuing to edit on SW as BlackJack. I will only use BeachBoyJack if I am editing away from home. |
BlackJack
|
Please go to the bottom of the page to place a new message. Thanks.
BlackJack(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I would like to appeal the indefinite block placed on myEnwiki account in January 2018.
Your administrator had no choice other than to block my account because I knowingly broke theWP:SPI rules. I fully accept that using alternative accounts was wrong, and that I should have had more faith in the administrators, and in myself, to deal with the problems I had encountered. There are no "buts" in that, I must stress. I was wrong, and I want to make things right. To achieve that, I would like to return to Wikipedia as BlackJack, and as BlackJack only.
You will need some guarantees from me, and the main one is—as I've just said—that I would edit as BlackJack alone. I absolutely guarantee that, and I'd be perfectly happy to comply with any conditions that you might set under the terms ofWP:CONDUNBLOCK. Possible conditions might be regular use of the CU function to monitor my work, and I would grant you full permission to do that, knowing that use of the utility is subject to regulations. You could exclude me from forums and talk pages—apart from my own, should someone ask me a reasonable question which deserves an answer. I would suggest having a mentor whom I could consult in the event of any real issues arising. All I ask for is to get on with expanding and improving articles. Any I'd like to create could go viaWP:AFC.
To provide you with some additional reassurance, my personal circumstances have altered considerably since January 2018. My real life situation is nowadays stable, but that was not the case all through the 2010s (I only mention this because it caused considerable stress at the time, but it is now ancient history).
As for what I can bring to Wikipedia, I think it is reasonable for me to say that I write well, and have the ability to improve articles to an acceptable standard, or better. For example, I had effectively been the sole author ofHistory of cricket to 1725 when it was promoted to GA-class in October 2008, and it still has that classification. Apart from my research and writing abilities, I have also had professional experience of reviewing, proofreading, and copyediting. The point here is that I can help Wikipedia, because I see regular editorship is down to just over 100,000 per month and falling. While the featured articles are generally very good, and the good articles are mostly good, they form a miniscule percentage of the entire encyclopaedia. The overwhelming majority of articles are in need of attention and improvement. It is obvious that the site needs competent editors like myself who are willing to work hard on expansion and improvement of coverage.
Incidentally, I'm interested in a wide range of subjects, not cricket alone, and I suppose my overall field is history in all its aspects. For example, I subscribe monthly to theBBC History magazine, and regularly watch historical documentaries.
Please take as long as you need to consider this request, and consult anyone who may have a point of view. If you want to ask me about anything, as long as it's not too personal, I'll do my best to try and help. I'm happy to receive emails, and have that enabled in my user profile.
Thank you.Jack |talk page10:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You've got to be kidding. No. Also, I've blocked your latest sock puppet.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)13:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, I accept that you had to block that account. I would point out, however, that Iterminated it myself three days ago because I decided that using additional accounts is wrong. Since then, I've been thinking about how to take things forward, and I decided to submit the unblock request. I figured that someone would check my current IP, and delete that account, but it doesn't change anything I've said above. I would like to resurrect BlackJack for the reasons stated, and I will not use any more alternative accounts. Can you please reconsider the request, and remember that I will accept terms underWP:CONDUNBLOCK. Thank you.Jack |talk page13:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Daniel andYamla, thank you both for your help earlier today.Jack |talk page10:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, there are three other accounts I've created and used in the last twelve months. You might not see those via CU if the IP addresses have changed. They areUser:PearlyGigs,User:EnterDuane, andUser:ReturnDuane. The last two merged into one after I lost a password.
Please advise what I have to do next in order to try and get the BlackJack account unblocked? Thank you.Jack |talk page13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlackJack(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Without repeating the content of the unblock request above, I still wish to resurrect the BlackJack account so that I can edit Wikipedia without being under a cloud. I should have mentioned before that there were undiscovered alternative accounts, but I wanted to focus on the facts that what's been done is done, and that I want to resurrect BlackJack as my only account. Please note that NRP only found two of my extant accounts, and I have voluntarily given them the names of the other three. There have been no others in the last twelve months.
Everything in the request posted this morning remains relevant. Please consider that request again. Thanks.
Jack |talk page13:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn per discussion withCoffeeCrumbs below. Please close this discussion. Thanks.Jack |talk page16:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Request has been withdrawn.PhilKnight (talk)23:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
BlackJack, a much better unblock request, with a far greater chance of success would beafter you haven't socked for six months. It's good that you disclosed the additional accounts, but it would appear more genuine if it wasn't paired with a request to be unblocked just three days after using a sockpuppet account.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight, can you please let me know what I am allowed to say and do on this page while blocked? I do not see any guidelines or restrictions anywhere, so I'd appreciate some pointers. You say the unblock request cannot be removed, but the archive bot did that a week or so back, and will do it again. Thanks,Jack (talk)23:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,AA. Glad to see you've returned. I'm presently doing a bit of research into the 1957 season, and I noticed that you're working on Bernard Harrison. If you're interested, there's a brief pen-picture of him on page 159 of the 1958Playfair. It says:
That's in theWho's Who section. He isn't mentioned in the Hampshire section, except in the batting and fielding stats on page 93, where it confirms he played in one match in 1957, scoring 16 and 3* (no catches, and he didn't bowl).
I have a full set ofPlayfair from 1948 to 1962 (the original handbook style), and also 1963, which was the first pocketbook. If you'd like me to check any of these editions for Hampshire players of the time, you only have to ask. Good luck, and all the best.Jack (talk)11:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,AA. Not much luck, I'm afraid. There are a few Hampshire team photos, but Harrison isn't in any of them.
There is an interesting mention of him in the 1961 annual. This is in the Hampshire report written byJohn Arlott on page 92. He was saying that Hampshire were short of good batsmen in 1960—apart from Marshall, Horton, and Gray—and then commented: "The newcomer,Danny Livingstone from Antigua, often played impressively; he and the unlucky Bernard Harrison look the county's best young batting prospects". He didn't qualify the "unlucky", but presumably he meant not enough first team opportunities.
Other than his mini-bio on page 153 of the 1962 annual, Harrison isn't mentioned at all in the coverage of the 1961 title. The mini-bio is effectively the same as the one in 1958 except that it confirms his highest score as 110 versus Oxford University at Portsmouth in 1961. Even though he played in five matches in 1962, and hadn't left the club, he isn't included in the Hampshire bios in the 1963 annual.
So, not much except for Arlott's view that he was an unlucky player. If you think I might be able to help with any research, please just let me know. Obviously, I'm still blocked because I was such a bad lad, but I've exorcised my demons and I'm hoping to get this account reinstated eventually, perhaps next year. In the meantime, I'm working on cricket and football coverage over at the Simple Wikipedia, which is a challenge, but I'm enjoying it so far.
All the best to you, AA, and keep up the great work.Jack (talk)10:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Larkin (cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Blue Square Thing (talk)11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlackJack(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello.
First of all, this is NOT—I repeat, NOT—a request to be unblocked.
I am trying to catch the attention of someone who may be able to provide me with a clean slate before I DO make a formal request.
On 12 May (see above), I asked one sysop to close three alternative accounts which were still open. No action was taken. On 5 June, I decided to send an email to someone in Arbcom, asking them to close all my old accounts. Again, nothing has been done.
Before I wrote to Arbcom, I carried out a search to find any other old accounts that are still open. I'm 99% certain that there are a total of eight, including the three I highlighted on 12 May. The eight accounts are:User:Old Lanky;User:Izzat Kutebar;User:SiSuCC;User:Jim Hardie;User:Wanderin' Wolf;User:PearlyGigs;User:EnterDuane; andUser:ReturnDuane. These all need to be closed. If I should remember or come across anything else, I'll ask for that to be closed too but, as I say, I think these eight are the lot.
As for when I will request unblock again, I doubt if it will be this year. I'm heavily involved at Simple Wikipedia now, and I expect that to continue for perhaps a year or more. However, when I do come back to request an unblock, I want the slate to be clean with no open alternative accounts.
So, would someone please close the eight which are still open.
Thanks very much.Jack (talk)19:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I assume what you mean by this is that you want these accounts to be blocked. First, can you tell me if you still have access to any of these accounts? Please ping me in your reply, thanks. --asilvering (talk)20:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Middle Ground until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.JMWt (talk)17:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
