Hi. If you'd like to write about the Gamma Phi fraternity, then please start a new article Gamma Phi (fraternity), rather than blank and overwrite an entire existing article, as you did at Gamma Phi. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good talking to you on your talk page. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Malik Sigma Psi, from its old location at User:BlackAmerican/Malik Sigma Psi. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Pi Gamma Omicron, from its old location at User:BlackAmerican/Pi Gamma Omicron. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Charles Cardoza Poindexter, from its old location at User:BlackAmerican/CharlesPoindexter. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Charles Cardoza Poindexter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! BlackAmerican, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Malik Sigma Psi. Thanks! Naraht (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pi Gamma Omicron. Thanks! Naraht (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information available as to when Malik Sigma Psi became MALIK? (and yes, I'm probably getting the capitalization wrong)

Just curious, do you belong to a GLO? I'm an alumnus of Alpha Phi Omega and if you look at my User Page User:Naraht, you can see that I have a userbox for that. I'll be happy to help you find or create one for your GLO, if you do belong to one.Naraht (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

Although you have found links at Google books, it is a good idea to provide a full citation to the book itself (author, title, publisher, date, and ISBN if available).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pi Gamma Omicron and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now Accepted!Naraht (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is *very* useful and someone made a tool for taking Google Books URLs and turning them into Wikipedia citations that are *really* good. Try dropping one of the Google book URLs into http://reftag.appspot.com/ . What comes out is awesome. For example, I transformed the first reference in Alpha Kappa Nu. (I'm probably going to have to go back since the tool treats it as a book rather than a collection of magazines, but that's on me. :)Naraht (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cardoza Poindexter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter M. Kimbrough, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I combined some references in that article, let me know if that works. There is a method to indicate that information for two references comes from the same source, but different pages, let me know if that will be useful.Naraht (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note... based on advice that I've gotten in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, what I have done over the years is the following. In terms of (fictional) Rho Sigma Tau Fraternity Incorporated (or Rho Sigma Tau Fraternity Inc.), I change this to Rho Sigma Tau fraternity in all cases except for the article on the group itself, its founders, and its National Presidents. (These are cases where equivalently (sort of), you would refer to Exxon-Mobil Inc. rather than simply referring to it as Exxon-Mobil. I'm fine with the redirects existing though. Yes, I know very well that the Historically Black GLOs use Incorporated *much* more often than a Historically White GLOs do (For example, I *never* expect a historically white GLO like Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Delta Zeta to add "Incorporated" to their name in anything other than something like purchasing a property.) (The Hispanic GLOs that have absorbed many Historically Black GLO traditions tend to do this as well)Naraht (talk)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Yash! was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eta Phi Beta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Yash! 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Brown has never called itself a University as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

You need to find more to say about the Sorority, perhaps in references you have, but perhaps after finding more references. Naming founders and officers, does not support notability, and especially if those founders are not famous in their own right. Instead, you need to say why the organization is noteworthy.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eta Phi Beta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Sigma Psi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

333-blue 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackAmerican, I noticed that the draft you were improving, Draft:St. John's Lacrosse Case, was not dated, so I replaced the AFC submission template with subst:submit. Please add subst:submit to drafts next time so that they will be in queue for review. 73.182.28.179 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment they left was:

Still seemingly questionable for WP:Notability (sports)#Basketball, add any further available amount of in-depth third-party news sources overall.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gregory Vargas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:St. John's Lacrosse Case. Thanks! 333-blue 07:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/live-with-regis-kathie-lee/2869201

Hello BlackAmerican, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Charles Cardoza Poindexter has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/live-with-regis-kathie-lee/2869201without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I didn't copy it from any website. I got it from a previous version of the article. [1] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:St. John's Lacrosse Case. Thanks! Bradv 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:St. John's Lacrosse Case and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 03:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlackAmerican: I am curious why you are using the articles for creation process, because you are not a new editor and are perfectly capable of creating articles yourself? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my articles aren't of good quality. They keep getting rejected.  :/ BlackAmerican (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There are still some unsourced statements. Please try find some more reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gregory Vargas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com/books?id=rNUDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA77&dq=Diane+Pierce+judo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK3ZSCgaTMAhUCXD4KHRD3CQEQ6AEIPjAI#v=onepage&q=Diane%20Pierce%20judo&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=HdcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA83&dq=Diane+Pierce+judo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK3ZSCgaTMAhUCXD4KHRD3CQEQ6AEIQjAJ#v=onepage&q=Diane%20Pierce%20judo&f=false

... Is this at? 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 00:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball at the 1984 Summer Olympics

Gordon Jones and Lemuel Graves  James H Morton.  Morgan T. Phillips,  George Tompkins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_players_(A)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Negro_league_baseball_players_(A%E2%80%93D)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_KBO_League_team_rosters

Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame

List of Japanese baseball players

I took all of the google refs and made actual cite books. Please use http://reftag.appspot.com/ in this situation. Also, I marked the article as a stub...

1959 vs. 1962. The founding date in List of African-American Greek and fraternal organizations is 1959, but the category on the Wine Psi Phi page is Student Organization established in 1962. Should one of these be picked for both?Naraht (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1959 as HUMS, 1962 as Wine Psi Phi, right?Naraht (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a point in the article. But just that the two dates mentioned in the list and the cat should agree...Naraht (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_stadiums

Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame

Hallo, Thanks for your work on various Japanese baseball players, which I've seen while stub-sorting. Could I make a few suggestions?

1. Please remember to start the article with the full name, not just the surname
2. And put that name in bold
3. Please give your references in full, not just the web addresses: the "Citation" tool can be really helpful here, just click "Cite" above the edit window and then use the dropdown "Templates" menu to pick "website" and fill in what you know.
4. If you're citing one ref more than once, give it a name and re-use it - you can see how I did this at Ryotaro Doi.
5. And we don't leave a space before a reference.
6. As you seem to be creating a lot of these, perhaps you could also add {{subst:L|yearofbirth|year of death|surname, forename}} (eg {{subst:L|1952||Bloggs, Joe}} if we know when he was born and likely to be still alive, or {{subst:L|||Bloggs, Joe}} if year of birth not known, or {{subst:L|1952|2016|Bloggs, Joe}}, if we know his death date. That creates the DEFAULTSORT (so they file by surname in categories), the "Living people" category if appropriate, and a birth and/or death year category if the year is known or a "year of birth missing" if not. It's quick to do and adds several useful things to the article. Thanks. PamD 14:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Padre Jean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maroons

http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/07/greatest-streetball-players-of-all-time/brian-watsonhttp://www.complex.com/sports/2013/07/greatest-streetball-players-of-all-time/brian-watson

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Larry Bone Collector Williams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a seperate quotations section. What you can do is incorporate the quote into the body of the article or migrate it to Wikiquote. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your new article about Dr. Cordice because I monitor the Isola Curry page. I've edited it, mostly for WP:MOS reasons but also for organization. (For instance, to make clear which Dr. Cordice moved to NYC to attend NYU.) I hope I've done no violence to the content. I tried not to edit for substance.

I think you can anticipate an eventual challenge to the article on the grounds that he's only notable for one event, so I'm glad to see the Tuskegee Airmen detail and the first-open-heart-surgery-in-France angle.

Thanks for your efforts to build up our content in this area. David in DC (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Never Hillary 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/Never Hillary until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Request for admin. Since you had some involvement with the Request for admin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your article about King Tone! It's quite interesting and I now want to watch the documentary and read the book!

I did a little formatting and editing during a review process and have a question about whether "King Tone" or "Fernandez" in the article on the Talk:King Tone page. In addition, I added a {{better source}} tag, because the article will be much stronger with books and newspapers as sources, per reliable sources, secondary sources, and prove notabililty. I explained the reasoning for the better source tags in the reason field, which you can see in "edit" mode.

If you have any questions about this, though, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

==To Do List==

https://www.usta.com/About-USTA/Diversity/Black-History-Month/5793_Black_History_Month__Pioneers/

http://www.blacktennishistory.com/gallery-of-champions-2/

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Wilson (basketball) 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/James Wilson (basketball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating James Wilson (basketball), BlackAmerican!

Wikipedia editor Velella just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Already at AfD

To reply, leave a comment on Velella's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Re your message: My apologies for the extremely long delay in getting back to you regarding your request. The revisions I deleted were deleted because the articles were purely vandalism and I will not restore those. However, if you want to see the article as it was during the AfD that was closed as delete, you will need to contact Beeblebrox or go through the Deletion Review when the article will be restored for review. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC) {{subst:Proposed_deletion_notify-NPF|David Edwards (basketball)|Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or [[WP:NHOOPS].}} Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC) {{subst:Proposed_deletion_notify-NPF|David Edwards (basketball)|Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or [[WP:NHOOPS].}} Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC) {{subst:Proposed_deletion_notify-NPF|David Edwards (basketball)|Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or [[WP:NHOOPS].}} Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Edwards (basketball) 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/David Edwards (basketball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of Inductees to the New York State Basketball Hall of Fame should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Inductees to the New York State Basketball Hall of Fame .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Bradv 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of players in the New York City Basketball Hall of Fame 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/List of players in the New York City Basketball Hall of Fame until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bradv 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Xyzspaniel. BlackAmerican, thanks for creating David Jacoby (sportscaster)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Needs a reference, independent of ESPN and Jacoby for verification, I removed one poor reference that tries to add malware to my computer when opening

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

XyzSpaniel Talk Page 19:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 12 January 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't operate multiple accounts. I have only operated this account since Feb of last year. I was using another account until that time and because of issues I did a clean start. I was on a restriction and never violated the restriction that was placed on me. I don't operate in the same areas as my previous account to avoid running into issues with the personalities that were stalking everything I was doing. I have created numerous articles and have operated for months without issues. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been using this account to evade blocks on other accounts. The fact that you have got away with it for months does not make it acceptable. Even if it were true that you had never edited "in the same areas" as your previous sockpuppets, evading the block would not be acceptable, but it isn't even true: there are at least fourteen articles which both this account and other sockpuppets of yours have edited. Here are a few of them to illustrate the point: Zack Hample, Tommy Morrison, Alpha Phi Alpha, Karlie Redd, Herman Mason, List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I had previously tried to do a fresh start but was outed (under NegroLeagueHistorian). I was doing clean up and 6 months after the fact I was blocked for it User talk:NegroLeagueHistorian: Revision history 04:20, 2 July 2016‎ 2607:fb90:249b:7b85:e6a3:b786:49ae:e4d4 tell the details of what went on. . When I created this account. I was not under any block. I stopped using all other accounts. I saw the sockpuppet investigations that were done against CA489. I didn't participate in them nor did I defend it. Since I was only using one account. I only edit from one place. All of the blocks outside of this were simply false. If you look at the sockpuppet investigations. Some of the individuals who made accusations were proven to be sockpuppets themselves and blamed me for things that I never did! These individuals included Mdtemp and TheGracefulSlick (checkuser confirmed). He thinks that I was creating accounts to harass him and tried to tell the world that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=prev&oldid=742040231 TheGracefulSlick blamed me but the details of his sockpuppetry were so strong that he simply deleted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=742315521&oldid=742313725 I find it strange how he blamed all of these socks on me, tried to slander me, but in the SPI they were proven to not be me. He claimed hacking, ip spoofing, and many other things, but the technical evidence showed it was him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=742315521&oldid=742313725 . I would suggest to take a look at this edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackAmerican&diff=752902710&oldid=752314501 and check the IP of 64.85.216.14 against some of the alleged CA socks that were attacking TheGracefulSlick and all of those socks against TheGracuflSlick accounts. An SPI of his account might be necessary. TheGracefulSlick has gone out of his way to have to AFD a number of articles that I have made under his username and his sockpuppet AlongStay and ABriefPassing. I saw him doing it and didn't bother arguing because he would have discovered my new account and stalked me. Again, I didn't evade any block since in Feb 2016, I was not under any block under my new account. I retired my old account CrazyAces489. I never used another account again. It was blocked about 5 months when it had not been in use for 5 months. Again, look at the sockpuppet investigations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CrazyAces489/Archive . Outside of NegroLeagueHistorian, for which I was punished (retalitatory in my humble opinion). There has been no other accounts outside of CrazyAces489 which was retired and BlackAmerican, which was started under no violation of any blocks. CrazyAces489 till about April 2015, NegroLeagueHistorian 4/2015-6/2015, CrazyAces489 from 6/2015 to 2/2016, BlackAmerican from 2/2016 to Present. That was it. So there was no multiple accounts not accounted for. I only edit from one place. BlackAmerican (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"When I created this account. I was not under any block." This is not accurate. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk · contribs) remains blocked. CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs) is also blocked. Yamla (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Yamla that is incorrect. NegroLeagueHistorian was blocked in Nov 2015, but I had already stopped using the account by June/July 2015. I only created that account to avoid being attacked by what was later proven to be sockmasters. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NegroLeagueHistorian&oldid=727942267 I stopped using CrazyAces489 by Feb 2016 and never used it again (it was blocked by Bishosen in June/July 2016). Which is problematic because the account wasn't even in use for MONTHS! I never used another account but this account since Feb 2016. A check user will easily prove this. In fact, an SPI would show this is the case. I created a lot of articles tat were helpful and many were deleted by JamesWatson https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/JamesBWatson&offset=&limit=500&type=&user=JamesBWatson though there have been requests to keep these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson . I have been attacked by many individuals who have been proven to be sockpuppets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa/Archive and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ATheGracefulSlick (or ALongStay). It seems like some of them are under admin protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#CrazyAces.3F . One of the sockpuppets seem to almost exclusively use his AFD's to attack articles that I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ALongStay https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TheGracefulSlick&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1 I tried to do a Fresh Start or Clean Start to avoid these individuals not once, but twice thus I had this 3 accounts. I even gave the account of what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NegroLeagueHistorian&oldid=727942267 . At this point over 100 articles that I created were deleted. I have not caused any trouble and at this point am asking for a standard offer WP:OFFER. I have not caused any trouble and have left areas that I really enjoyed editing due to being attacked by sockmasters. BlackAmerican (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. I think your only chance of being unblocked here is indeed the Standard Offer, but that requires you to not edit here, using any account or logged out, for a minimum of six months. There will still be no guarantee, but I can't see anyone offering you anything better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (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.

• To be clear, because you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding our policy regarding multiple accounts, you (the human being on the other side of the computer screen) are blocked from editing Wikipedia. You cannot edit under any account or IP, or create any new accounts, while you (the human being on the other side of the computer screen) are blocked. This has nothing to do with using multiple accounts concurrently; you are blocked for creating new accounts to edit when you are prohibited by policy from doing so. If you want to roll the dice with the the standard offer that's your prerogative, but you have to go away completely for a minimum of six months for an unblock to even be considered. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that is totally fine with me. I can do the standard offer. 6 months with no editing can be done. I do ask that you do an SPI since I am 100% sure that I wasn't not creating other accounts other than the ones I listed. I have been blamed for the behavior of accounts that were not mine. [2] I have strong beliefs that some of these accounts are related to user TheGracefulSlick who is a proven sockmaster. He has totally denied his sock puppets but a checkuser proved he was in fact a sockmaster. I do request that a restriction be placed on TheGraculSlick from AFD'ing the articles I created. He has made it a personal mission to delete as many articles as he can under his user name and his sockpuppets [3] and [4] . In fact he double voted on multiple AFD's using his account and sockpuppets ALONSTAY and ABRIEFPASSING [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] . Let other users AFD the articles but he has a personal mission to do this. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, are you saying sock puppets like User:DepressedTyler and User:ILovePeter, among other confirmed puppets, are not you? You did not purposefully create those accounts to insult me and PRehse? You are something else, CrazyAces. Then you make demands to restrict me when you are in no position to do anything. I'm sorry that you were blocked, but we tried to help you improve and you refused to listen. You can blame anyone you want but that is the truth. You said so many awful things about me and what I enjoy [15] [16] [17] (go ahead, deny that was not you) but I still offered my respect. You could go a long way right now for your standard offer by having a civil discussion with me right now about how we can work things out. Heck, I would even promote the idea of you being unblocked in six months and help make that happen in any way I could.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, Lets make bygones be bygones. I have moved on. I don't touch your accounts, or articles. If the admins are ok with your usage and how you operate, who am i to say anything. I wish you well on your journey to becoming an admin. I will create what some people deem to be "shitty" articles, but its of people who are borderline noteworthy. Most fully noteworthy subjects have been covered. I have a niche that I like and focus on that. I know you watch my account, and you are free to do that [18] but you will have no debate from me about anything. Not even a conversation. Life is too short to bother with it all. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have remained off of wikipedia for the 6 months necessary and have not edited anywhere on wikipedia during this time. As per the above I am requesting a Standard Offer. I did notice when I logged on that my account was tagged for a number of things that I had nothing to do with. Ponyo feel free to do a check user to prove my non usage. Thank you and all the best. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your standard offer began on January 20, the last time you edited; with that known, you are seven days short of a standard offer. Although I would overlook that, I will not overlook the general consensus at this ANI case which stated you edited logged out to accuse me of sockpuppetry. I will agree with whatever Ponyo decides but your chances are probably slimmer than if you challenged El Indio to a duel. I hope you realize you'll have to admit to all the wrongs you committed if you indeed are offered an opportunity of a SO and explain why you are a net-benefit to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to make the Standard Offer request then I suggest you do so using the unblock template. As this is a Checkuser block, at some point a CU will need to be run (not necessarily by me), but I strongly believe that no unblock should occur without a review of the unblock request at WP:AN. You have a history of socking, disruption, attacks, and harassment and should not be unilaterally unblocked without community consensus. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]