Contents

User talk:BlackJack: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:15, 9 July 2023

Gone for good.

I no longer take part in discussions relating to processes, policies or guidelines because they are a waste of time. I am happy to answer polite and interesting questions raised on this page about articles or research, but anything else will be deleted. Thank you.

Messages

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

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello. This is Jack. I will make this request once only and will go away without protest if the answer is no. If the answer is yes, I will be happy to return under whatever sanctions or conditions you deem necessary. I would be more than happy to operate under a "no discussions" rule such as I formerly suggested for myself above, although I should of course be allowed to answer bona fide questions about articles or research.

Although I am formally asking you to restore my account, I am not going to beg on bended knee. I have had reasons for my activity on Wikipedia and I have views about the site which are not going to change. As I will explain, however, I'm prepared to compromise and go with the flow from now on.

I've given the site a lot of thought as there is no doubt that you need help from people like me who are capable of writing good articles. You are losing editors and the site is sinking. I have written something like thirty WP:GA pieces and reviewed several times as many. I have also raised numerous other articles from stub/start-class to B-class. I would have liked to move some of my work into WP:FA but, frankly, a process in which people really do argue about the difference between a comma and a semi-colon does not appeal to me at all, so I was always content with the maxim that a good article is a good article.

Okay, the problem between Wikipedia and myself has always been the plethora of rules, guidelines, essays and opinions on here that are all deployed as rules whether they are or not. I could say the only sensible rule you have is WP:IAR but, of course, policies like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V are absolutely necessary and, if you search high and wide, you will not find any article which I have developed where any of those fundamental policies were broken by me.

I have deliberately breached your rule about account names for three reasons. First, you do not have the moral or ethical (or, probably, legal) right to insist that an editor must always use the same pseudonym and is not allowed to alter it, especially when the editor retains copyright to content he/she has introduced. I regard SPI as a breach of human rights. Okay? So that's largely where I was coming from whenever I decided to dispense with one name and use another instead. Second, it is a matter of record that a stalker called User:Richard Daft, who claimed to be an authority on cricket (he wasn't), decided to victimise members of WP:CRIC for many years and, as I was the main contributor to cricket history articles, me in particular. I therefore made some account changes to try and avoid that idiot. Third, from the mid-2000s onward, the attitude of many editors and administrators to SPI has bordered on paranoia. They create the impression that content does not matter at all, regardless of how good it may be, but who actually wrote it is a question of paramount importance. That sort of behaviour, which is used to try and enforce rules of all descriptions, is widely condemned in the real world as "ruleswanking" and Wikipedia is notorious for it. I personally know at least twenty people who have opened accounts with you and have invariably quit because of the toxic atmosphere created by such negativity and wanton interference.

It does not matter in the least that both BlackJack and, for example, No Great Shaker worked on the same article at different times, especially when that article is now sitting in WP:GA. What does matter is that BJ and NGS never, I repeat never, intentionally took part in the same AFD/CFD. My focus was always on creating and developing articles, which I have done with a degree of success. If I wish to make a point in a discussion of any kind, I do NOT use subterfuge. If you care to check, you will do well to find any instances of duplicity on my part unless I made a genuine mistake. For example, I do recall I once added a vote at an AFD and then realised I had been there before several weeks earlier. So, did I just leave the double vote and go somewhere else? No, I removed the second one.

I confess that I have another problem with the site in that I don't suffer fools at all, never mind gladly. I do, however, help and encourage new editors and make due allowance for their inexperience. There is a key difference between someone who does not know and someone who bloody well should know.

As I said above, if you allow me to return, I will abide by whatever conditions you apply as long as I can write articles and perform related necessaries like editing categories and templates. If you want me to avoid named editors or specific articles or certain procedures, that would be fine by me. One condition you will certainly require is that I must unconditionally comply with SPI and I will agree to do that. My views have not changed but, if it is a site rule with consensual support, I will accept the consensus and will edit as BlackJack only.

That's about it. I can't think of anything else I could usefully add and, unless you have questions over and beyond what I've written about, I don't intend to say anything more. I'm being completely straight with you. Wikipedia has many faults and people react to them in many different ways. The bottom line is that you need to expand the encyclopaedia and editors like me have shown over many years that we can do that for you.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello. This is Jack. I will make this request once only and will go away without protest if the answer is no. If the answer is yes, I will be happy to return under whatever sanctions or conditions you deem necessary. I would be more than happy to operate under a "no discussions" rule such as I formerly suggested for myself above, although I should of course be allowed to answer ''bona fide'' questions about articles or research. Although I am formally asking you to restore my account, I am not going to beg on bended knee. I have had reasons for my activity on Wikipedia and I have views about the site which are not going to change. As I will explain, however, I'm prepared to compromise and go with the flow from now on. I've given the site a lot of thought as there is no doubt that you need help from people like me who are capable of writing good articles. You are losing editors and the site is sinking. I have written something like thirty [[WP:GA]] pieces and reviewed several times as many. I have also raised numerous other articles from stub/start-class to B-class. I would have liked to move some of my work into [[WP:FA]] but, frankly, a process in which people really do argue about the difference between a comma and a semi-colon does not appeal to me at all, so I was always content with the maxim that a good article is a good article. Okay, the problem between Wikipedia and myself has always been the plethora of rules, guidelines, essays and opinions on here that are all deployed as rules whether they are or not. I could say the only sensible rule you have is [[WP:IAR]] but, of course, policies like [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] are absolutely necessary and, if you search high and wide, you will not find any article which I have developed where any of those fundamental policies were broken by me. I have deliberately breached your rule about account names for three reasons. First, you do not have the moral or ethical (or, probably, legal) right to insist that an editor must always use the same pseudonym and is not allowed to alter it, especially when the editor retains copyright to content he/she has introduced. I regard SPI as a breach of human rights. Okay? So that's largely where I was coming from whenever I decided to dispense with one name and use another instead. Second, it is a matter of record that a stalker called [[User:Richard Daft]], who claimed to be an authority on cricket (he wasn't), decided to victimise members of [[WP:CRIC]] for many years and, as I was the main contributor to cricket history articles, me in particular. I therefore made some account changes to try and avoid that idiot. Third, from the mid-2000s onward, the attitude of many editors and administrators to SPI has bordered on paranoia. They create the impression that content does not matter at all, regardless of how good it may be, but who actually wrote it is a question of paramount importance. That sort of behaviour, which is used to try and enforce rules of all descriptions, is widely condemned in the real world as "ruleswanking" and Wikipedia is notorious for it. I personally know at least twenty people who have opened accounts with you and have invariably quit because of the toxic atmosphere created by such negativity and wanton interference. It does not matter in the least that both BlackJack and, for example, No Great Shaker worked on the same article at different times, especially when that article is now sitting in [[WP:GA]]. What does matter is that BJ and NGS never, I repeat never, intentionally took part in the same AFD/CFD. My focus was always on creating and developing articles, which I have done with a degree of success. If I wish to make a point in a discussion of any kind, I do NOT use subterfuge. If you care to check, you will do well to find any instances of duplicity on my part unless I made a genuine mistake. For example, I do recall I once added a vote at an AFD and then realised I had been there before several weeks earlier. So, did I just leave the double vote and go somewhere else? No, I removed the second one. I confess that I have another problem with the site in that I don't suffer fools at all, never mind gladly. I do, however, help and encourage new editors and make due allowance for their inexperience. There is a key difference between someone who does not know and someone who bloody well should know. As I said above, if you allow me to return, I will abide by whatever conditions you apply as long as I can write articles and perform related necessaries like editing categories and templates. If you want me to avoid named editors or specific articles or certain procedures, that would be fine by me. One condition you will certainly require is that I must unconditionally comply with SPI and I will agree to do that. My views have not changed but, if it is a site rule with consensual support, I will accept the consensus and will edit as BlackJack only. That's about it. I can't think of anything else I could usefully add and, unless you have questions over and beyond what I've written about, I don't intend to say anything more. I'm being completely straight with you. Wikipedia has many faults and people react to them in many different ways. The bottom line is that you need to expand the encyclopaedia and editors like me have shown over many years that we can do that for you. Thanks for reading if you've come this far. I'll leave it with you. Best wishes. <b>[[User:BlackJack|Jack]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:BlackJack|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello. This is Jack. I will make this request once only and will go away without protest if the answer is no. If the answer is yes, I will be happy to return under whatever sanctions or conditions you deem necessary. I would be more than happy to operate under a "no discussions" rule such as I formerly suggested for myself above, although I should of course be allowed to answer ''bona fide'' questions about articles or research. Although I am formally asking you to restore my account, I am not going to beg on bended knee. I have had reasons for my activity on Wikipedia and I have views about the site which are not going to change. As I will explain, however, I'm prepared to compromise and go with the flow from now on. I've given the site a lot of thought as there is no doubt that you need help from people like me who are capable of writing good articles. You are losing editors and the site is sinking. I have written something like thirty [[WP:GA]] pieces and reviewed several times as many. I have also raised numerous other articles from stub/start-class to B-class. I would have liked to move some of my work into [[WP:FA]] but, frankly, a process in which people really do argue about the difference between a comma and a semi-colon does not appeal to me at all, so I was always content with the maxim that a good article is a good article. Okay, the problem between Wikipedia and myself has always been the plethora of rules, guidelines, essays and opinions on here that are all deployed as rules whether they are or not. I could say the only sensible rule you have is [[WP:IAR]] but, of course, policies like [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] are absolutely necessary and, if you search high and wide, you will not find any article which I have developed where any of those fundamental policies were broken by me. I have deliberately breached your rule about account names for three reasons. First, you do not have the moral or ethical (or, probably, legal) right to insist that an editor must always use the same pseudonym and is not allowed to alter it, especially when the editor retains copyright to content he/she has introduced. I regard SPI as a breach of human rights. Okay? So that's largely where I was coming from whenever I decided to dispense with one name and use another instead. Second, it is a matter of record that a stalker called [[User:Richard Daft]], who claimed to be an authority on cricket (he wasn't), decided to victimise members of [[WP:CRIC]] for many years and, as I was the main contributor to cricket history articles, me in particular. I therefore made some account changes to try and avoid that idiot. Third, from the mid-2000s onward, the attitude of many editors and administrators to SPI has bordered on paranoia. They create the impression that content does not matter at all, regardless of how good it may be, but who actually wrote it is a question of paramount importance. That sort of behaviour, which is used to try and enforce rules of all descriptions, is widely condemned in the real world as "ruleswanking" and Wikipedia is notorious for it. I personally know at least twenty people who have opened accounts with you and have invariably quit because of the toxic atmosphere created by such negativity and wanton interference. It does not matter in the least that both BlackJack and, for example, No Great Shaker worked on the same article at different times, especially when that article is now sitting in [[WP:GA]]. What does matter is that BJ and NGS never, I repeat never, intentionally took part in the same AFD/CFD. My focus was always on creating and developing articles, which I have done with a degree of success. If I wish to make a point in a discussion of any kind, I do NOT use subterfuge. If you care to check, you will do well to find any instances of duplicity on my part unless I made a genuine mistake. For example, I do recall I once added a vote at an AFD and then realised I had been there before several weeks earlier. So, did I just leave the double vote and go somewhere else? No, I removed the second one. I confess that I have another problem with the site in that I don't suffer fools at all, never mind gladly. I do, however, help and encourage new editors and make due allowance for their inexperience. There is a key difference between someone who does not know and someone who bloody well should know. As I said above, if you allow me to return, I will abide by whatever conditions you apply as long as I can write articles and perform related necessaries like editing categories and templates. If you want me to avoid named editors or specific articles or certain procedures, that would be fine by me. One condition you will certainly require is that I must unconditionally comply with SPI and I will agree to do that. My views have not changed but, if it is a site rule with consensual support, I will accept the consensus and will edit as BlackJack only. That's about it. I can't think of anything else I could usefully add and, unless you have questions over and beyond what I've written about, I don't intend to say anything more. I'm being completely straight with you. Wikipedia has many faults and people react to them in many different ways. The bottom line is that you need to expand the encyclopaedia and editors like me have shown over many years that we can do that for you. Thanks for reading if you've come this far. I'll leave it with you. Best wishes. <b>[[User:BlackJack|Jack]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:BlackJack|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello. This is Jack. I will make this request once only and will go away without protest if the answer is no. If the answer is yes, I will be happy to return under whatever sanctions or conditions you deem necessary. I would be more than happy to operate under a "no discussions" rule such as I formerly suggested for myself above, although I should of course be allowed to answer ''bona fide'' questions about articles or research. Although I am formally asking you to restore my account, I am not going to beg on bended knee. I have had reasons for my activity on Wikipedia and I have views about the site which are not going to change. As I will explain, however, I'm prepared to compromise and go with the flow from now on. I've given the site a lot of thought as there is no doubt that you need help from people like me who are capable of writing good articles. You are losing editors and the site is sinking. I have written something like thirty [[WP:GA]] pieces and reviewed several times as many. I have also raised numerous other articles from stub/start-class to B-class. I would have liked to move some of my work into [[WP:FA]] but, frankly, a process in which people really do argue about the difference between a comma and a semi-colon does not appeal to me at all, so I was always content with the maxim that a good article is a good article. Okay, the problem between Wikipedia and myself has always been the plethora of rules, guidelines, essays and opinions on here that are all deployed as rules whether they are or not. I could say the only sensible rule you have is [[WP:IAR]] but, of course, policies like [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] are absolutely necessary and, if you search high and wide, you will not find any article which I have developed where any of those fundamental policies were broken by me. I have deliberately breached your rule about account names for three reasons. First, you do not have the moral or ethical (or, probably, legal) right to insist that an editor must always use the same pseudonym and is not allowed to alter it, especially when the editor retains copyright to content he/she has introduced. I regard SPI as a breach of human rights. Okay? So that's largely where I was coming from whenever I decided to dispense with one name and use another instead. Second, it is a matter of record that a stalker called [[User:Richard Daft]], who claimed to be an authority on cricket (he wasn't), decided to victimise members of [[WP:CRIC]] for many years and, as I was the main contributor to cricket history articles, me in particular. I therefore made some account changes to try and avoid that idiot. Third, from the mid-2000s onward, the attitude of many editors and administrators to SPI has bordered on paranoia. They create the impression that content does not matter at all, regardless of how good it may be, but who actually wrote it is a question of paramount importance. That sort of behaviour, which is used to try and enforce rules of all descriptions, is widely condemned in the real world as "ruleswanking" and Wikipedia is notorious for it. I personally know at least twenty people who have opened accounts with you and have invariably quit because of the toxic atmosphere created by such negativity and wanton interference. It does not matter in the least that both BlackJack and, for example, No Great Shaker worked on the same article at different times, especially when that article is now sitting in [[WP:GA]]. What does matter is that BJ and NGS never, I repeat never, intentionally took part in the same AFD/CFD. My focus was always on creating and developing articles, which I have done with a degree of success. If I wish to make a point in a discussion of any kind, I do NOT use subterfuge. If you care to check, you will do well to find any instances of duplicity on my part unless I made a genuine mistake. For example, I do recall I once added a vote at an AFD and then realised I had been there before several weeks earlier. So, did I just leave the double vote and go somewhere else? No, I removed the second one. I confess that I have another problem with the site in that I don't suffer fools at all, never mind gladly. I do, however, help and encourage new editors and make due allowance for their inexperience. There is a key difference between someone who does not know and someone who bloody well should know. As I said above, if you allow me to return, I will abide by whatever conditions you apply as long as I can write articles and perform related necessaries like editing categories and templates. If you want me to avoid named editors or specific articles or certain procedures, that would be fine by me. One condition you will certainly require is that I must unconditionally comply with SPI and I will agree to do that. My views have not changed but, if it is a site rule with consensual support, I will accept the consensus and will edit as BlackJack only. That's about it. I can't think of anything else I could usefully add and, unless you have questions over and beyond what I've written about, I don't intend to say anything more. I'm being completely straight with you. Wikipedia has many faults and people react to them in many different ways. The bottom line is that you need to expand the encyclopaedia and editors like me have shown over many years that we can do that for you. Thanks for reading if you've come this far. I'll leave it with you. Best wishes. <b>[[User:BlackJack|Jack]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:BlackJack|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}