BlackJack

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 10 months and 10 days.

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

END

This user has no more userboxes.

Messages

Please go to the bottom of the page to place a new message. Thanks.

Unblock request

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).

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 my Enwiki account in January 2018.

Your administrator had no choice other than to block my account because I knowingly broke the WP: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 of WP: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 via WP:AFC.

(additional content) It's occurred to me that you may wish to set a trial period, or even a waiting period, before considering further. If you wish to do that, can I suggest that you allow me to edit my sandbox and its subsets box1 to box6? This would enable me to work on proposed page updates and enhancements. I could then communicate the proposals to relevant project members, who could put them in mainspace if they agree. That's just an idea you could use in other cases, even if not for myself.

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 of History 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 the BBC 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 page} 10:35, 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 I terminated 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 under WP:CONDUNBLOCK. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:16, 12 May 2025 (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.

Daniel and Yamla, thank you both for your help earlier today. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:38, 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 are User:PearlyGigs, User:EnterDuane, and User: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 page} 13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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 page} 13:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn per discussion with CoffeeCrumbs below. Please close this discussion. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:32, 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, 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.

BlackJack, a much better unblock request, with a far greater chance of success would be after 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]

Hello, CoffeeCrumbs, and thank you for your very sensible response. I will put everything on hold, as you advise, until the dark month of November. After all, there's the whole of spring and summer during the next six months. One thing I will do in the meantime is make small changes to this page every few days, so that there is a continuous record of edits, traceable by CU, through all IP addresses I may have in that time. My IP address doesn't change often. I know the last time was some weeks ago when we had a power cut, and lost use of the hub for several hours.

That's acceptable to me. I'll close this request now, and reapply in November. Thanks again, CC, and all the best to you. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best to you as well! Good faith goes a long way with admins and the community in general. You're only blocked on English Wikipedia, so doing things like participating on Simple Wikipedia would also go a long way to demonstrate good-faith editing. Your challenge, after all, is to build trust. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SW strikes me as a good idea. I've taken a preliminary look at it, and there's certainly a lot I could do there. Thanks again, CC. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this page while blocked

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]

No response. I'll let it go, shall I? Jack (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, just turn of the archive bot if you want. ^{Remove wikitext} The bot to not archive and so that the previous unblock requests are here and it is more convenient for admins. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want you can read this, but it may not be so relevent for your case and also because it is a historical article. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cactus. I'm just going to forget about this. Have set algo to 365d, so bot won't work for a whole year. Apparently, I should wait until November before applying here again, so I'll focus on SW now. Thanks again. Jack (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Harrison

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 1958 Playfair. It says:

Harrison, Bernard R. S. (Hants). Born Worcester, 28 September 1934. RHB, RM. Joined county staff 1956. No relation to Leo Harrison. Football for Crystal Palace. Debut 1957.

That's in the Who'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 of Playfair 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]

Hey! That's very kind. Where would we stand with the pen-picture re fair-use? I have been expanding Hampshire cricketers over the last 18 months. Currently, 527 have been expanded (or about 72% of the total!). Hopefully Roy Marshall will be an FA soon. AA (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'm afraid I misled you by saying pen-picture instead of mini-biography. There is no photo. Later on, I'll look through the 1959 to 1963 editions, and see what there is. Playfair did include team photos then, so he could be on one of those. I don't know how you would stand on fair use, though.

I'll be back later today. Been out late, and just got in.

Good luck with Roy Marshall. He was a really good player. Jack (talk) 01:24, 17 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 by John 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]

Hey! That's alright! I think the most strange thing about Harrison was how he fell away as a footballer. He seemed quite the prospect and was mentioned amongst some quite lofty names in terms of prospects. As a cricketer, fate conspired against him: Gray and Marshall were simply too good to be ousted!

Look forward to working with you again if you are unblocked in November. Marshall is now a FA :) Cheers and all the best, AA (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, AA, for getting Marshall there. As you said, he and Jimmy Gray were a very good opening partnership. I'll see how things are shaping up in November, but I've got really involved at SW now, and enjoying it. The cricket coverage over there is in need of a good shake-up, though! Let me know if I might be able to help with any research. All the best. Jack (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Larkin (cricketer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Larkin (cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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]

BST, it seems the 2008 version of the Hadlow site was overwritten, and Wayback cannot now access it. I'm not sure if it was a reliable source then, but it certainly wouldn't be now. Ashley-Cooper has Larkin in an All-England team, if I remember rightly without looking, so we know he was a good player. Even so, the article fails SPORTCRIT and there is a lack of SIGCOV.

Actually, his entry in List of English cricketers to 1771 is better than the article because it cites Ashley-Cooper's pages. That entry contains a typo ("know" instead of "known"), by the way, so you could correct that.

You could redirect per ATD-R, but there will never be anything more than the list entry already says, so I would delete the article as proposed. If you want to quote me as author at the AFD, please do so. I'd have no objection.

Incidentally, we have something of a LUGSTUB issue over at SW, which I'm beginning to address. Much smaller scale than yours, of course. Looking at the task you've undertaken, can you get access to WP:AWB? It isn't automatic, but it would do that job a hell of a lot quicker than manual. It seems you're up against a deadline, though, and you'd need a bit of time to get the hang of AWB before using it on the stubs. Good luck. Jack (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the typo. I imagine there are a couple of others that might be worth a look on that list – Eures is probably in the same boat to start with. AWB doesn't work for me – Windows only isn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is on the Windows platform only, that's right. Eures (strange name) is another who had only brief mentions, such as being a team member, in the old sources. If I was starting to create 18th century coverage now, I'd concentrate on the teams, and use the list to say what little is known of the early players. A handful like Newland would still meet SPORTCRIT, but there'd be very few pre-Nyren bios. Back in the 2000s, though, quantity was the word and we were actively encouraged to create stubs.

I'd delete any that fail SPORTCRIT now, like Eures, and just add what we know to the lists. The way forward for WP:CRIC is to focus on quality, which means improving the articles which have scope for improvement. I know I created a massive number of stubs, myself, but that was then. Now, I would use ATD-R and put all stub content into lists. Jack (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could also consider Ridge, Harding, and Quiddington for AfD. Probably Bayton, as well, because much of that article is padding. There'll be others, too. Let me know if I can help. Jack (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]