Your chemtrail page: conspiracy??? Yeah sure, we all know it's going on and if sure damn real, so when you say it's a conspiracy, you are bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.243.166 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment on the article "List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad" in the Wikipedia Administrators Notice Board. Your input is highly valued as you edited this article previously.

Click here: Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias to comment--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My article on this Nazi enthusiast group was removed for "not providing a reliable source" yet I am the group's founder and leader, therefore there is no source more reliable than that Elrych menard (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your group isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Blackguard 20:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackguard SF. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Sunshine Burger, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not unambiguously promotional, and the subject is notable and sourced. Tag it with {{advert}} instead. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Excellent flavor sensation", "true, satisfying flavors and hearty texture", "leading edge", all from a recently created WP:SPA. Notable maybe, but the article needs to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. Blackguard 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are promotional user pages like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodUniversity allowed? It is the same content from the now-deleted Good Univerisity Wikipedia article.

Thank you. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blackguard 17:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Sandra Ramsingh Vallie. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reminding me to provide citations... Apparently it is either forgotten or accidentally deleted... but Thanks anyways! -mxzbz Mxzbz (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackguard SF. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Qin Liwei, a page you tagged for speedy deletion. I know there are some copyright problems, but that is his bio then it should be fine right? Steelcello (talk) 01:57, 28 Oct 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not fine. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for Wikipedia's policy. Blackguard 20:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackguard SF.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blackguard SF. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackguard SF,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Hi Blackguard SF, now that you have the new page patroller permission it will be great if you can use it when you have checked a page. For example you moved and tagged Alan Davies (BBC) but did not mark it patrolled. If you do mark it patrolled it will save others from checking it again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mark it patrolled because it needed another pair of eyes on it. Blackguard 06:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a New Page Reviewer, in contrast to New Page Patroller, you are the second set of eyes. Also, although you are not obliged to, you may wish to consider using the purpose-built New Pages Feed and its Page Curation tool. This will avoid bugs, clashes between the systems, edit conflicts while tagging, and above all, it will reduce the workload of admins. For more information please see the tutorial. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Blackguard SF,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Adelaide Regiment of Volunteer Rifles, Blackguard SF.

Unfortunately DGG has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

meeds tagging for major problems

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

there were major problems present that were not marked--most particularly, that the article was completely unreferenced. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Kopan Canal, which in addition included twice the meaningless phrase. "Canal ‘Kopan’ got its name from the Russian word ‘копать’ (dig), because this canal was made by people."

I also listed Patriots Museum of Brazilian Emigration for deletion--there are no non-primary sources to show notability. You reviewed it, but indicated no problems. Ditto for Junya Inoue. Ditto for Charlotte Invasion

For Lőrinc Schlauch, though the source indicates a copy from the catholic encyclopedia, this is an an outdated non-refered source--and it did not give the details of vol. and page number, c

These are the sort of thing that NPP is supposed to catch, even with a minimal review. Please look more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]