User talk:Jimmy Slade

AfD nomination of UEFA Euro 2020

An article that you have been involved in editing, UEFA Euro 2020, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2020. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – Pee Jay 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Gas Company Tower.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Gas Company Tower.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand my mistakes in past. A reason for my blocking is inability to communicate. Yes, in previous I not communicated with other users here, and it was really problem, because I saw showing of information in my forms, and other users in their form. And we must discuss about "how it must to be". Approximately 1 year I have other account and all of time I begun discussion if I saw controversies of information, and it was right, and I continue so. I would like unblock this account (my previous) because I wanna editing pages here under my real name - Jimmy Slade. If necessary, I may publish my current account like the proof of my changes

Decline reason:

You are very unlikely to have this account unblocked while it is known that you have been evading your block with a sockpuppet account but you have not told us what that account is. Whether you will be unblocked if you reveal that account depends on what comes to light when you do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2011 (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.

I would like to publish, but I afraid so you block and my new account too, like sockpuppets.

I'm read guide to appealing blocks, so because I write here. And I know about blocked me user User:Tanthalas39, His blocked too. Jimmy Slade (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other account

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

EGroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

No. Users are only permitted to use one account for editing (see WP:SOCK). Blocked users also must get unblocked before editing again - as a (now twice) blocked user, you are not allowed to edit any page other than your user talk page. If you wish to edit again, DO NOT create any further accounts or attempt to edit while logged out. Instead, log into whichever account you would like to have unblocked, and appeal from there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my new account, using by me approximately 2 years, and now block, because word in username EGroup, not show real world. I believe you merge this pages and unblock me, because I wrote reason in another page. Jimmy Slade (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

And you again unblock me, seeing so I'm changed. OK thank you. I believe administrators never unblock this account, and I will not create new accounts Jimmy Slade (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been asked to tell us the names of any other accounts with which you have been editing. You will not be unblocked until you do. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:19, 24 October 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't have any more accounts, just was User:EGroup, which I'm used approximately 2 years. I don't see sence create another. I'm used User:EGroup two years... I don't have another accounts. Jimmy Slade (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is a lie right here in this unblock request, revealed by your now-restored talk page [1] You had three other sockpuppets. I don't know if you are faking incompetence to troll Wikpedia or if you really are this incompetent, but it hardly matters. Unblock declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to note, so it was 21 months ago, not yesterday or two weeks ago. 21 months - it's 2 years, and that sockpuppets are known by admins. Talk about that in history here. Jimmy Slade (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I was willing to WP:AGF on this one, especially if edits since had been positive to the project - hence my question immediately below. Do you understand that if you are blocked, it is you, the person who are blocked from editing? Do you understand that evading a validly-imposed block is therefore also blockable? You claim that other accounts were known by admins - no, not by all of them: you intentionally hid the "evidence". It's one thing to evade a block once - it's eventually forgivable. However, deceit is not. You socked, lied, deceived, and now expect us to trust you. Perhaps WP:OFFER might someday apply to you; however: you must understand that you personnally may not edit the English Wikipedia whatsoever, either with an account or anonymously while you are personally blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 26 October 2011 (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.

Let me attempt to clarify: you created this Jimmy Slade account in July 2007, and were blocked on Decembmer 4 2009. You created EGroup account on December 5, 2009. It was blocked recently for WP:SPAM. Do I have the timeline correct? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it will be great. Jimmy Slade (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, I've done what can be done to "merge" the accounts as you requested. EGroup's user and talk page now redirect here, I've moved over the content from EGroup's user page to this account, and I have re-blocked that account as an admitted sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admins For whatever reason this page was deleted in the past. Deleted versions of the page from 07-09 show numerous past unblock requests, followed by a promise to never edit here again and never ask to be unblocked again. When this (admin only link) goodbye message was posted he had already been using the Egroup account for several weeks. This is exactly why we don't normally deleted user talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the history of this page, and restored the deleted versions. User talk pages are not normally deleted, and there seem to me to be good reasons why an exception should not be made in this case. Firstly, the user repeatedly requested deletion on the basis that he/she was not going to edit here any longer, which turned out to be far from the case, so the basis on which the page was deleted is invalid. Secondly, there are various aspects of this user's history which need to be visible, as the user has a history of making claims about his/her editing which do not seem to be supported by the facts, and in such a case it is essential to have as much transparency as possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latest unblock request: You seem to have missed the point. You were asked point-blank to identify all other accounts you used. You said You had used one other account, when the truth was you had used four. You asked for your user and talk pages to be deleted, and then you kept recreating them. I don't know what your game is but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for you to be playing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game? You talk about like a joke. I don't have fan creating accounts in Wikipedia, just because I don't know what me do today! You asked me about another accounts...right? Are you clarified so I must publish accounts for all of my time here? You asked me publish...I'm published account which I'm used 2 years. Another accounts was published here. You may find it in page's history. And that's why I'm not noted that. I had "EGroup" last 2 years. I forget about "Jimmy Slade, US", "Jimmy Slade, World" and "JSlade", because it was in far past, and was published. May I have more account(s), I don't know. If I have, but I believe I don't have, it was very very past, and that account(s) now inactive.

2 years ago, I'm every day lived in Wikipedia, every day I edited pages here. Today, I just have sometimes editing pages here, because I have another matters. I would like to add some new information here, if I know that, or editing page where inactive some elements. For example, very often you may see links to inactive files or inactive websites, that must be deleted. But I would like do this under userpage Jimmy Slade, because it's my real name. If you decline my request, well OK, if you think so, and I will not create another userpages, because I explained that, because my name.

You know so last time (all time under EGroup) I didn't vandals, I didn't swearing or haven't conflicts with another users. I just 2 years had another account, because I don't had beautiful English knowledge before, and that's why I left this account for time when I may explain in English. My knowledge of becomes more and more, every day. One of reason of, I live in New York City 5 months ago.

It's no game for me and I think I'm explained about all of, so you decide. Jimmy Slade (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having declined one of your unblock requests, I will leave it to another administrator to assess the latest one. However, I will make the following comment. You ran several sockpuppet accounts. You repeatedly requested deletion of records of discussions in talk pages, giving reasons which turn out on examination not to agree with the observable facts. You claimed you had had only one other account, and when it was pointed out that there had been others you claimed you had forgotten them. I can easily believe that a person who has used numerous sockpuppet accounts can fail to remember every one of them, but I find it difficult to believe that someone with a history of using numerous sockpuppets, and taking considerable pains to hide the evidence, can forget that they had used several accounts. It is not just a question of forgetting that you used several accounts: it is also a question of forgetting the considerable efforts you went to to have the evidence destroyed. I normally try hard to find a good faith explanation of editors' behaviour whenever possible, but when the person in question has a clear history of telling lies, assuming good faith becomes difficult. It looks to me very much as though you thought you could get away with pretending those sockpuppet accounts didn't exist, because the record had been deleted, not reckoning with the fact that the record could still be seen by administrators, and would be restored to view in order to expose your dishonesty. That may not be what happened, but if not then it is your own fault that your lies and attempts at deception have made it look that way. As I have already said, I will leave the assessment of your latest unblock request to someone else, but if I had not already declined one of your requests I would be not only declining this one, but also revoking your talk page access to stop you wasting yet more of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting of your time, I just try to prove I'm changed. And made by me errors in past, it's not mean so I made it today. And again, for example last 2 years I'm not create another userpages except EGroup, which I'm used until last time. If for you it's not a proof, I don't know what can I prove else. You appeal just 2 years ago history about me, and you don't want to see what I've done to changes in me, in my views, what I've done in Wikipedia. I don't deny my inappropriate behavior 2 years ago, and I explained that, because I didn't have English language. Today I'm English speaker, I may talk with you, with another users, and of cause with people in real. I just ask you to consider all about me, include today, not just my made's of 2 years ago. About sockpuppets, I don't have any more, just all that listened here previously, so my remembrance is OK. You User:JamesBWatson presented me here, like person suffering from memory, like Alzheimer's disease. Jimmy Slade (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To BWilkins - I would like honestly answering, BUT if will make question by correctly! Jimmy Slade (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your final opportunity is WP:OFFER. No if's, and's or but's. If you edit en.Wikipedia during that time, you will violate the opportunity. I will be locking this talkpage for 6 months. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Proposed deletion of Irkutsk New Airport

The article Irkutsk New Airport has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any evidence this new airport was ever build. Irkutsk International Airport is the only full airport around and it is almost 100 years old.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Irkutsk New Airport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irkutsk New Airport 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/Irkutsk New Airport 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.

Rogermx (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]