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]

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:Pi Gamma Omicron. Thanks! Naraht (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

WikiProject African diaspora is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles on wikipedia related to the cultural contributions of people of African descent all over the world. You are invited to join by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject African diaspora. Welcome!

— 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]

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]

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]

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 borderline noteworthy articles, but important to various minority and ethnic communities. 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 [15] 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]

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:

Requesting standard offer. As Per WP:OFFER, I have waited 6 months with no sockpuppetry or ban evasion. I promise to avoid behavior that has led to my ban. I will not engage in problematic edit wars nor will I engage with individuals who baited me and vice versa. I will not not create extraordinary reasons to object to a ban. I will continue to create articles that mainstream wikipedia does not necessary look at or for due to Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am using courtesy and am willing to move forward productively. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline; administrators cannot simply unblock anything tagged as a checkuser block, as it would require getting hold of private information to determine whether you really have gone 6 months without anything editing. You'll need to contact the Arbitration Committee to get unblocked by emailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 30 July 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 request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

As Per Ritchie333 and Ponyo [16], I need a checkuser done. I am making a public request for a checkuser, which can be done here. [17] . WP:SO doesn't state anything about emailing arbcom or even requesting a checkuser be done. In fact, it says 3 things.

1. Numbered list item
2. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
3. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
4. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

It also states

1. Numbered list item
2. After you have waited six months, contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via your user talk page, email, #wikipedia-en-unblock connect or WP:UTRS) (list of administrators).
3. If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI).
4. Discussion usually takes a few days.

I have waited and although it says nothing about a checkuser, I am willing to go through the extraordinary step. I don't see where contacting Arbcom is stated or required. I have tried to contact admins multiple times via my talk pag, I have made a statement, and am humbly waiting for a thread on ANI and AN. I have avoided any confrontation with people who I have had a edit war with even if they still contact me here with their own conditions for my editing. [18]. So as of now, I am again requesting a checkuser be done of this account this week. Thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested CheckUser attention. Someone should contact you shortly. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire and Ritchie333: I see no activity on the user's IP address or addresses other than this account for the last 90 days. Pinging Ponyo as she made the CU block. Katie^talk 09:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Okay, I was slightly misleading - the policy for lifting checkuserblocks says to contact the original checkuser (in this case Ponyo) first and if that goes nowhere, then to email Arbcom. My point stands that "ordinary" admins can't just unblock an account tagged with ((checkuserblock)) as they don't have access to the full facts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'm aware of the request. Their blanking of pertinent information to this unblock request certainly isn't helpful for reviewing admins, and as I noted here I don't support an unblock request at this time. That being said, if the community consensus is that more rope should be extended, then I won't stand in their way.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely should, which I why I mention "community consensus".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo) I apologize if you feel that I am blanking pertinent information. I was simply trying to focus on the Standard Offer and not the constant essays and unsolicited opinions of TheGracefulSlick. I guess seeing that everytime TheGracefulSlick gets accused of something, he says it's me like

1. [19]
2. He made numerous statements that were blatantly false and has violated Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, such as saying I compromised his cell and email. [20], referred to me as a black supremacist [21]. Accounts that have nothing to do with me were said to be me. [22]
3. I blanked it to focus on an the SO, TGS blanked [23] a detailed statement about his sockpuppeting behavior [24] and was given a lecture about it by DeltaQuad. [25] An admin along with Mike V that he later attacked [26]. DeltaQuad stated that he was violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks and was Casting Aspersions Wikipedia:Casting aspersions [27].
4. I was totally accused of attacking of attacking TGS [[28]] and the long list of socks were proven to be User:Leaky gut syndrome, User:Hamish Ross, but some were tagged as being me [29] even when it was said they were unrelated. I am fine with a checkuser being done to show those socks aren't me. Some admins tagged me [30] and it was later changed to being someone else [31]
5. TGS accused me of being a sock [32] that was proven to be him. [33] and [34]
6. TGS said that GOS2 was me [35] even though it was proven to be someone else [36].
   
7. I corrected my comment about making "shitty" articles because it was wasn't taken correctly. Sorry for using slang.

In terms of socks, There have only been 3 confirmed accounts to me. All long use accounts. CrazyAces, NegroLeagueHistorian, and this account. I do not use other accounts but have continuously blamed for other accounts as a result of TGS. I edit warred, if there are socks it is only of these 3 accounts.

1. CrazyAces Oct 30, 2010 [37] to April 27, 2015 [38] A single Day of May 24, 2015 [39] June 23, 2015 [40] -Feb 6, 2016 [41]
2. NegroLeagueHistorian April 30, 2015 [42] June 28, 2015 [43]. I was blocked and punished for my overlap with of CrazyAces and NegroLeagueHistorian.
3. BlackAmerican Feb 9, 2016 to present [44]

I tried a CleanStart to avoid certain editors and edit warring it seems unproductive to argue on WP. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have dealt with him and simply don't like debating him. I simply want to edit in peace and contribute positively. I have no plans on commenting on his current Sockpuppet Investigation [45]. In fact I hope it isn't him socking again. He does contribute to WP with his music articles.

In the end, I would like to positively contribute to WP. I have stated and will state again, I will move forward productively as is required by SO. I waited the 6 months and a checkuser was done and cleared me. So I would like to proceed to the next step. BlackAmerican (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC) BlackAmerican (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Need Help with Standard offer

Standard offer is a not a suicide pact, no one is obligated to unblock you after 6 months. Based on how you continue to argue about TheGracefulSlick, it simply does not look good enough. I suggest stop with the ((helpme)) template, just leave your unblock request open and quote Ponyo's response. In the meanwhile, be specific about how you plan to contribute to Wikipedia, such as what kind of articles you are planning to edit or what kind of projects you think you can be helpful at without being disruptive. Alex Shih^Talk 10:19, 4 August 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 plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players, Individuals relevant to black history, and martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih, "@Ritchie333: I'm aware of the request. Their blanking of pertinent information to this unblock request certainly isn't helpful for reviewing admins, and as I noted here I don't support an unblock request at this time. That being said, if the community consensus is that more rope should be extended, then I won't stand in their way.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)" BlackAmerican (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request. Yamla (talk) 01:04, 2 October 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 plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page. I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih. I have passed a checkuse to prove that I have not been sockpuppeting. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock request withdrawn, below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 18 October 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.

• @BlackAmerican: If you want to say anything at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican as it progresses, tell us what you want to say here and I will copy it across for you (or anyone else who sees it first can). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Boing, I wish you could restart the AN as my statement wasn't available.

I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page (which is extensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_players_(M) ). I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih. I have passed a checkuser to prove that I have not been sockpuppeting. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. As can be seen by the AN, there is bad blood on the part of TGS towards me. I have been blamed for a number of things including his own sockpuppeting. [46] where extensive proof by multiple and him being lectured about it [47] . I will not engage him or others and will stay away from situations that could cause me to be reblocked. I do ask that we be banned from interaction from each other or going into articles that the other edits at. People go to jail and after time they learn their lesson. Why is time treated differently as a punishment here? Not editing on wikipedia for 6 months has taught me that it is a gift to be here and I will not take it for granted.

In conclusion, I will abide by the terms of the standard offer and be a better editor. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've copied that across for you. I can't really start the AN discussion again, at least partly because some of your comment is in response to it. And you really did have the chance to make your statement available, in your unblock request - that's what it's for, after all. But I have pinged everyone who has commented so far, so they have the chance to reconsider if they wish to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that TGS is unfairly poisoning the well, by [Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]] (which another admin stated he has done in the past) [48].. He stated that this comment was me [49] right here [50]. This is not me and is no way connected to me. This isn't the first time he is blaming me for things that aren't me (Now that I think about it, the first IP is strikingly similar to an IP chain used by CrazyAces: see here. He is well known to be stalking me before and after his block around Wikipedia, including AfDs. I do not recognize the second IP however.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)) [51] and has been lectured about it. (No, but I will advise TheGracefulSlick to refrain from pointing fingers at CrazyAces when we all know it's not CrazyAces. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

I am simply asking for a Wikipedia:Standard offer, which states "Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." I have done all 3 the requirements and have behaved well for a while now. It also states "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." TGS has asked for apologies for something that I haven't done and influenced the vote as shown here "Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)" SO does not require apologies, but I have accepted responsibility for what I have done not for things I have not done "I should have never engaged these individuals and kept on creating articles such as Camp Van Dorn Slaughter, John W. V. Cordice Martha Boto Bretagne (rescue dog) William Warrick Cardozo Free Bleeding Movement Giichi Arima William E. Robertson Jimmie McDaniel 1961 NCAA University Division men's basketball gambling scandal Friendship College and more" [52]. I have also stated that TGS and I don't interact to him directly. [53] . What else can I do to prove that I will be an asset? Why have an SO if someone follows the rules of the SO and as contrite but still won't be given a fair shot? BlackAmerican (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TGS is "She" - do you want to amend the above comment before I copy it across? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've copied it as is - I can correct it later if you want me to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee I have 3 small things to talk about. First things is that I am requesting an IBAN request between TGS and myself. This isn't the first time I have requested one between TGS and myself. The second thing s is that I honestly believed TGS to be a male. . This wasn't mean to offend TGS. In fact, in the past TGS has been referred to as a male and additionally gave the born name which was the name of a male Tyler David.... [54]. The last thing is that I am requesting a withdrawal for my unblock request. Maybe it isn't the right time and even though I tried to make peace a while back with TGS [55] . I feel that things will never improve and a new leaf can be turned if TGS cannot accept it (in fact I have repeatedly tried to move on and make peace at least 10 times) or unless an IBAN is enabled. I stay away from anything that has to do with TGS, i cannot say it is the same the other way around. BlackAmerican (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've declined your unblock request as withdrawn, as requested. An IBAN would have to be agreed by the community at AN. But at this stage, while you are blocked and can not interact, I see no chance of that happening so I am not going to propose it. Should you get yourself unblocked some time in the future, you can then request an IBAN yourself if you wish. I won't comment at AN about TGS and the male/female mistake as there's no need to bring her personal information any further into it, but I'm sure she'll see your comment here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll just add that there was some support for an unblock, and some valuable comments were offered. If you take heed of those comments, I think you could have a better chance of an unblock should you make a new request at a future time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, Thank you for the withdrawn request. I understand about the IBAN not making sense at the moment. The male/female thing is tricky to me as TGS has always been known as a male to me as TGS put in biographical information and has now removed it on the users profile. In terms of the support, I did see it and saw that certain things could be done to improve the request. Maybe in a several months, I will do a reconsideration. Thank you for your help and at least considering my request. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Nomination of [[:Jon Peters (pitcher)}

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ghazala Khan (american). Since you had some involvement with the Ghazala Khan (american) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 20:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Garnett Thompson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG

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. GPL93 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Floyd Bank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL

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. GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have remained off of wikipedia for over 2 years more than necessary and have not edited anywhere on wikipedia during this time. As per the above I am requesting a Standard Offer. feel free to do a check user to prove my non usage. Thank you and all the best.

You have an open unblock request below; that will be reviewed. Huon (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ghazala Khan (american). Since you had some involvement with the Ghazala Khan (american) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 20:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Garnett Thompson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG

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. GPL93 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Floyd Bank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL

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. GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have remained off of wikipedia for over 2 years more than necessary and have not edited anywhere on wikipedia during this time. As per the above I am requesting a Standard Offer. feel free to do a check user to prove my non usage. Thank you and all the best.

You have an open unblock request below; that will be reviewed. Huon (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ghazala Khan (american). Since you had some involvement with the Ghazala Khan (american) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 20:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Floyd Bank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL

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. GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have remained off of wikipedia for over 2 years more than necessary and have not edited anywhere on wikipedia during this time. As per the above I am requesting a Standard Offer WP:STANDARD . feel free to do a check user to prove my non usage. Thank you and all the best. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the help me template. Give a read of WP:GAB. Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo feel free to do a check user to prove my non usage. Thank you and all the best.

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 have remained off of wikipedia for over 2 years more than necessary and have not edited anywhere on wikipedia during this time. As per the above I am requesting a Standard Offer BlackAmerican (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that your latest unblock request was discussed at WP:AN, any new request would also need to be discussed by the community. However, this request, which is a repetition of the "I've done my time" argument you tried before, would not persuade anyone. You should make a request that's fit to be posted to WP:AN and that addresses your past conduct as well as the arguments against unblocking you raised in the 2017 discussion. Huon (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Requesting standard offer. As Per WP:OFFER, I have waited 2 years with no sockpuppetry or ban evasion. I promise to avoid behavior that has led to my ban. This was engaging with individuals over article content. The edit wars I was engaged was primarily over WP:OWN trying to protect articles I created from being deleted. I will not engage in problematic edit wars nor will I engage with individuals but bring it to admins or notice boards. Wikipedia is not a wp:battleground and I will not treat it as such. I will not create extraordinary reasons to object to a ban. I will continue to create articles that mainstream wikipedia does not necessary look at or for due to Systemic bias in Wikipedia (some cultures, topics and perspectives tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia. Some of the types of systematic bias wp:bias that exist on Wikipedia include gender bias, racial bias, and social class bias). I am using courtesy and am willing to move forward productively. I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page on English wikipedia. I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history who don't have a page on wikipedia, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I believe that a 3 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. I am contrite in my belief that I can be a strong asset. I have shown that I will not evade a ban by not being on for over 2 years. I have gone through some trying situations and have a newer outlook. BlackAmerican (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

By community consensus, you've been unblocked. If you have trouble, please feel free to ask an administrator for help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your unblock request to WP:AN. Ignore the broken wikicode in the template; it's harmless. I just want a quick way to mark the request as "on hold" without having to search for a better template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlackAmerican, welcome back into editing Wikipedia. Please read through the unblock discussion thoroughly so that you avoid behavior leading to another block. Many of us believed in you, please do not let us down. starship.paint (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hiromi Fuji. Since you had some involvement with the Hiromi Fuji redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your socks are blocked. Do not attempt to make them look like legit socks, because they're not. Edit warring your past missteps will not help you with the community. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Dianne Durham, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican,

Thank you for creating Donothan Bailey.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please try to fix the issues mentioned in the article. Also feel free to add more information about the person. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Path slopu)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PATH SLOPU 08:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican

Thank you for creating Donothan Bailey.

User:Path slopu, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi greetings, there are different sources (RS) related to this topic available on internet. Please feel freee to improve this article. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Path slopu)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

PATH SLOPU 08:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youBlackAmerican (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to say that I've spent quite a lot of time and effort fixing the numerous issues with an article you created, Luci Collins — if you review the article's edit history, you'll see what I mean. (In fact, I'd hazard a guess that I spent more time fixing the article, than you did creating it.) Unless this was an isolated incident and you normally create tip-top articles, would it be wholly unreasonable to ask that you try to follow the guidelines? And yes, I know your user page says "Ignore all rules!!!", but still. ;) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing, Thanks for the help. I fell asleep. 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for writing this draft. It seems that Durham meets point 4 of the notability criteria for gymnasts listed in the link below. Draft would be stronger with more detail and more sources to support this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gymnastics

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:Dianne Durham and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dianne Durham, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Durham, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 10:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your intention is with this AFD - are you planning to submit it? If so there's several steps you need to follow. Please follow the instructions here. In the meantime the AFD is likely to be deleted as a test page. Thanks. Glen (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if I did it right. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this appears to have been accidentally created in main article space. I suspect you wanted WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 22. Thanks, Captain Calm (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Norman Seabrook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toshitaka Enomoto. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#Toshitaka Enomoto until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Torsodog^Talk 05:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Standard Offer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Standard Offer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US Patent. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#US Patent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Transgender In Japan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the editor who moved your recent article to the draftspace. Please, do not add unsourced articles to the mainspace. Especially on a topic such as this, where accurate attribution is extra important, I'd encourage you to use good sources. Also, you might want to consider adding your research on this topic to Sexual minorities in Japan. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bio living person. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#Bio living person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Jaeckel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No signs of sufficient notability per WP:NSPORT, he won with 12 years one competition, that seems to be all

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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clean Start. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Clean Start until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Rose (Canadian football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hillcrest High School. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Herve Damas 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/Herve Damas 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.

Penale52 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Latarian Milton 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/Latarian Milton 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.

Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I came across the AfD page for Latarian Milton, and after reading through the discussion I wanted to offer a suggestion. I noticed that you replied to a few different things with large amounts of text, used a few examples multiple times, and copied in large parts of policies that you also linked to. That made it a bit tricky for me to figure out what was going on. The essay on not "bludgeoning the process" has been useful to me in the past, and I wonder if it might be useful to you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 09:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackAmerican, I am hoping to convince you to start some talk page discussion at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. I appreciate that you are following WP:BOLD, but it's clear from the reverts that your edits are contentious. Could you please help me, and other editors, understand how you're trying to improve the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding there! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to get the slant off the article so it doesn’t read like a hit piece. I found that even with less contentious topics, there is a negative inertia towards discussing the slant of the topic. A good faith discussion should be possible, but expect a blockade of questions even when the simplest person can consider your change request as having merit. For mgtow, the simple 30 word quote from the original source no maam web page is considered as not credible as a source.

The sad effect is that search engines only show the first paragraph and burying the actual objective of mgtow later hides it from most readers.

We have a community garden here. You can work on any part and everything is owned by everybody. Sarah likes the rose bushes and will chase you away if you try to trim them.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad 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:Kevin Samuels and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kevin Samuels, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black feminism, White feminism Feminism and racism

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 30-point rule 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/30-point rule 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.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Transgender In Japan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Gamma Phi (Secret Society), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) and has insufficient improtance for a separate article. The intricate detail will be of no general interst. Consider merge into the sucesssor societyl, I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Maria Liana Mutia, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...))
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|MPGuy2824)). And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norman Seabrook, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Seabrook until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 07:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackAmerican. Several of your recent articles have had cleanup issues that have needed to be fixed by other editors. Since you have been creating articles for some time now, I wanted to be clear about some expectations for future articles. Here is a non-comprehensive list of issues I've noticed:

• Spacing around ref tags (see MOS:REFPUNCT): Ref tags are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before, and there is no space between the punctuation and the ref tags.
• Bare URLs (see WP:BAREURL): References with just a URL and no other citation information are not good a practice, as it makes it much more difficult to locate the source when the URL breaks. I recommend using templates like ((cite web)) and ((cite book)) to format citations.
• Categories (see WP:CAT): Please add them. The easiest way to determine how to categorize a new article is to look at several similar articles and see what categories they use. Always try to use the most specific categories possible.
• Default sort key (see WP:SORTKEY): Articles on people are generally sorted within a category by their last name, not their first name. To adjust how a page is sorted you need to add a default sort key just above the categories. So for Ray Denslow, you would add the following: ((DEFAULTSORT:Denslow, Ray))
• Miscellaneous formatting: The title of the article is bolded in the first sentence. This is accomplished by enclosing the text with three apostrophes (e.g., '''Ray Denslow'''). Titles of books are italicized. This is accomplished by enclosing the text with two apostrophes (e.g., ''I Am Freemasonry''). Also, people are referred to by their last name within articles rather than their first name (see MOS:SURNAME).

Please be considerate of your fellow editors who need to clean up after you and pay more attention to these issues going forward. For examples of these issues and how to fix them, see my edits at Ray Denslow. I'd be glad to assist if you have any questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the tips in an easy to follow format! I wish I had this a long time ago. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article Island Boys is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Boys 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.

Xclusivzik (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

BlackAmerican,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Baseball notability and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Baseball notability until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gamma Phi (Secret Society), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2022 (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 Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NORG, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Beta Theta Pi Fraternity is a primay source.

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:Gamma Phi (Secret Society) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gamma Phi (Secret Society), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Naraht and I'm a fairly experienced editor specializing in Greek Letter Organizations. In general individual chapters of National GLOs are not considered notable, and it isn't apparent to me what would make it so (relative to the other chapters of Beta Theta Pi for example). Local GLOs are *generally* not considered notable, and I don't see anything in Gamma Phi's history between 1903 and its affiliation with Beta Theta Pi which would make it so.Naraht (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Delores Brodie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not appear to meet WP:GNG. internet search and a search of historic newspaper records does not turn up significant coverage.

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. agtx 00:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert W. McGee 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/Robert W. McGee 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.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karren Hummer 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/Karren Hummer 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.

Bushxingu (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tammy Hostetler 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/Tammy Hostetler 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.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sophie Freud, which you created from a redirect. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Robin Chapman (Judo), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 192.91.253.6 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sophie Freud, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sophie Freud, the granddaughter of Sigmund Freud, criticized his theory of psychoanalysis as a "narcissistic indulgence"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sophie Freud. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sophie Freud), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the lead of a controversial WP:BLP is unsourced. JKR is subject to two different sets of discretionary sanctions: BLP and gender-related. I see (above on your talk page) that you have been notified of discretionary alerts since March of last year. The content of J. K. Rowling, and particularly the lead, both enjoy very strong consensus based on a recent well-attended RFC, and a more recent Featured article review. Please don't add content to leads that is not included in the body; it's prudent to not add any unsourced content to BLPs. As Rowling is a Featured article, please also see WP:FAOWN, and gain consensus on talk for edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no discussion for your reinstatement of similar poorly sourced text at Talk:J. K. Rowling. Would you like to self-revert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Female Privilege

Regarding the article you linked to J. K. Rowling without a source, please read Copying within Wikipedia; you must attribute when copying text from one article to another. Also see Wikipedia Copyright violations and close paraphrasing regarding the importance of rewriting structure and content from sources in your own words; you copied the exact structure of two sources into the content you created.

Regarding the sources used there, please review the reliable sources guideline with respect to writing biographies of living persons.

I see you have dozens of posts above about articles you have created that had to be deleted, or were nominated for deletion, going back years, as well as this recent post about expectations for new articles from Lord Bolingbroke. But with this content, you don't seem to be have absorbed yet some basics of starting new articles. I have restored the redirect that was at that article before your edits, mostly because of the copyright and attribution concerns, but also because there was very little there that was salvageable. You are no longer a new editor; please try to take greater care when creating new articles, so other editors don't have to spend so much time cleaning up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed what you asked about. I am unsure what you are talking about. I took it out the lead, and put it in main body. I edited the redirect so that it isn't a direct copy and paste. What else do you want me to do? I believe I added a source to the JK Rowling. Should I just quote it? BlackAmerican (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated. You should discuss your edits on the article talk page and gain consensus before you reinstate text that was already removed once. I recommend that you self-revert before your breach of discretionary sanctions comes to admin attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What discretionary sanctions? I thought i fixed the issue of reinstated text by paraphrasing and adding a source? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my first post here; the Discretionary sanctions are displayed clearly on your talk page here, and my first post to you linked to them. When you have been reverted once, you should discuss edits on the article talk page before reinstating the same content. I explained to you above that the content at J. K. Rowling has strong consensus and you should discuss to gain consensus before adding text. You have now added poorly sourced content twice. JKR is a Featured article and uses only higher quality sources (although I doubt that the source you are using would be accepted in any article). I suggest you self-revert the content, and gain consensus on talk before re-adding it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was already reverted. I am on the talk page. I didn't think the sources was bad. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Doug Weller also notified you of the gender-related discretionary sanctions on November 21, 2022. Your edit has been reverted twice now. Please do not reinstate without gaining consensus at Talk:J. K. Rowling. Would you mind re-reading everything I have posted here, to be sure you understand the importance of respecting Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and understanding the quality of sources that are required when making statements about living people? Also, please read WP:CWW; you cannot copy content between articles on Wikipedia without attribution. And changing the wording from a source, while retaining the structure (for example, seven points with some word changes) is still copyright violation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I have no idea what Doug Weller wrote about. As I said before, I am on the talk page for JK Rowling. I did what you said and took it out the lead, and put it in main body. After that, I went to the talk page. I am unsure why you mentioned it again, as if you look on the talk page, I have written on it. I read what you wrote, it really isn't clear to me. So is it better to just leave a quote? Which is what I did. It was under a paragraph total and was a direct quote. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I posted to you is in the link you were just given and is still on your talk page. It’s a bit worrying you haven’t found it. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, since you say what I wrote "really isn't clear to [you]", although I have tried to provide multiple explanations, and it's not clear you are reading or understanding the links provided, I will put it much more bluntly.

If you add content again to J. K. Rowling that does not have the agreement of other editors on Talk:J. K. Rowling, you are very likely to be blocked.

You would be wise to suggest edits on the article talk page, and if they have consensus, someone else will make them for you.

Separately, you might consider always checking the talk page of an article before editing to see if there are any discretionary sanctions listed at the top of the page, as there are at Talk:J. K. Rowling (where you will also see that it is a Featured article). Because the discretionary sanctions have been pointed out to you multiple times, you are assumed to be aware of them, and other editors are not supposed to re-post them to you when you already have them. You have a long editing history, are not a new editor, and are presumed to know your way around Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing

Here is a post on a completely unrelated article and a different editor from Diannaa. Reading this may help you better understand the concerns about this content you added, following too closely the structure of the sources, while changing a few words. Diannaa posted to you about copyright in 2016, but the information she provides in this new link is much more specific, and applies to the Female Privilege content. Content copied from User talk:Ficaia; please notice how I attribute this content copied in edit summary to comply with Copying within Wikipedia.

The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. Chronological material does not have to be presented in a different order, but it can be difficult to re-work, as can direct clean prose. But if you can't figure out a way to re-write the material, you can't add it to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you would like some suggestions as to how to properly summarize content so that it is compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aliia Roza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability, Non-Neutral Point of View

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aliia Roza 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/Aliia Roza 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.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Santa Fe, Texas into Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bruxton, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Edward Szrejter, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...))
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Bruxton)). And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Renraku-no-kata, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bruxton (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Judo Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesse Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, V.N. Parthiban, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://winhilladvisorskirby.com/areas/santa-fe. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neil Ohlenkamp 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/Neil Ohlenkamp 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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Wajahat Ali, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dial911 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:NJOURNALIST and indicate with comments which criteria he meets there. Is he a regular news correspondent for NYT, CNN? Is he a columnist? Has he won any major journalist awards? Meanwhile, try not to write this in any resume style. Needs years for schools, jobs. Co-hosting The Stream is helpful but need year span for that to see if that was a notable gig or just a brief stint.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wajahat Ali and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nathan Ingram (karate) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Other than the spurt of coverage when he foiled the bank robbery in 1981, and even that is mostly simple mentions, there is not any in-depth coverage of him in independent, reliable, sources. Fails WP:GNG.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Ingram (karate) 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/Nathan Ingram (karate) 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lee D. McCaskill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://schoolsfirsthours.blogspot.com/2018/02/brooklyn-technical-high-school-free.html, https://hannahacademyguide.blogspot.com/2018/02/brooklyn-technical-high-school-fort.html, and https://enpalazzo.blogspot.com/2018/03/brooklyn-technical-high-school-best.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Lee D. McCaskill was tagged as a copyvio from a blogspot page. When I dug a little deeper I found the blogspot page had copied Wikipedia's article on Brooklyn Technical High School. I am assuming you copied the content not from the blogspot post, but from the school's page. Assuming that is what you did, please add talk page notices to both pages per the best practices described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Attribution is required. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Don Kikuchi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jack Yonezuka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hank Ogawa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:V.N. Parthiban, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help. Your request requires administrative rights, and I was inactive for long enough that my administrative rights were removed procedurally.

My action was just a little housekeeping, deleting the page for technical reasons, and then undeleting it. The article is deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Landi. If the circumstances of this article have changed (e.g. Landi has become notable), you can talk with the deleting administrator or request undeletion at WP:DRV. Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlackAmerican,

An article you created was recently moved to the draftspace, after some searching, I failed to see the sources sufficient to meet the requirements of our general notability guideline. Please consider adding more sources and better sources more importantly if you can find some. I was not able to find better sources in my WP:BEFORE search. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V.N. Parthiban 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/V.N. Parthiban 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jadi Tention has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no independent reliable sources provided

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. ABHammad (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in; as I've seen you around the wiki. We have a lot of similar interests so I thought it would be nice to say hello here. BhamBoi (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice to meet you! BlackAmerican (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "V.N. Parthiban".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jadi Tention, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Island Boys 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/Island Boys (2nd nomination) 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.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Holcombe L Rucker School of Community Research, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Maurice Nadjari, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Renraku-no-kata".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 06:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read that page and please put more effort in your citations. WP:TUTORIAL has good guidance on how to add references correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2023 (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 Raydann was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Holcombe L Rucker School of Community Research and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Don Kikuchi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jadi Tention, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Karriem Abdallah, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wajahat Ali, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maurice Nadjari, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DreamRimmer were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No improvements have been made since the last decline.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wajahat Ali and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlackAmerican. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Holcombe L Rucker School of Community Research".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howell Emanuel Donaldson III, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St. John's University and Red Storm.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect James Morton (Alpha Phi Alpha has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § James Morton (Alpha Phi Alpha until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]