User talk:MrLinkinPark333/Archive 15

GA criteria question
Hello! I was looking at some of the completed reviews for the GA backlog drive because I was interested in learning more about the GA process, and I read your review at Talk:Daniel Brühl/GA1. I hoped you wouldn't mind clarifying it for me a little, since I am confused by the criteria you're applying for "verification". In What the Good article criteria are not it says that inline citations are only required for specific kinds of statements, and there doesn't have to be a reference for every single sentence. The article may still be a quickfail given the unreliable sources, but to my eye the "verification" part looks ok. Are you concerned there needs to be more sourcing because Daniel Brühl is a BLP? I don't edit much in BLP topics so I'm not sure what the norms are. Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello there! The main policies relating to verification would be Verifiability and No original research. In the page you linked, Criteria 2c No original research says "Point (c) means that all facts, opinions and synthesis in a good article should be based on reliable sources with no original research." Even if Brühl wasn't a BLP, I'd be very concerned when an article has a lot of uncited parts. If it's common knowledge stuff, like 2+2=4, then no cite is needed. When it's information that's not common knowledge, like what awards did Brühl win or what roles did he play, then citations are needed. Also, Inline_citation also states "Substantially exceeding them is a necessity for any article to be granted good or featured article (or list) status" in regards to minimum citations. In all of the GANs I review, I look out for any uncited content. While uncited statements are more concerning for BLPs, uncited content prevents a GAN from passing criteria #2 Verifiable with no original research. In regards to BLPs, Biographies of living persons says the main points are verification, no original research and neutral point of view. With Brühl, there was original research as content was added without providing a reliable source. There was also verification issues as there were usage of unreliable sources as well. Thank you for asking me about this review! I suggest taking a read of the BLP page above that I linked to help you familiarize with these policies :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

CSD G13s
Hello, MrLinkinPark333,

One problem Wikipedia has is probably hundreds of thousands of abandoned User pages that haven't been edited for years. Unfortunately, CSD G13 doesn't apply to most of them. For User pages, to be eligible for CSD G13, they either have to be 1) Userspace with an template or 2) Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

If you have any solution that would apply to the vast majority of abandoned and sometimes, completely blank, old User pages, I encourage you to make a proposal at the Village Pump. Maybe the next proposal will get support that previous ones didn't receive! Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The ones I nominated with G13 I believe fall under the Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text part. I think the New article name goes here new article content ..., blank reference section and example.com in the external links is the placeholder text at article wizard. If that's no longer the case for G13, then that part of the criteria would need updated. This default text is the only ones I nominate with G13 after checking there has been no human edits for 6 months. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Gratitude
Dear, I received your thanks for creating the article Jean Gray (academic), and I would like to take the time to say that I appreciate it, and that you are very welcome! How kind you are indeed. Sincerest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Maddy nsit/sandbox/Netaji Subhas Institute Of Technology
Hi MrLinkinPark333 -- There isn't really a sensible means of deleting good-faith drafts of articles that appear abandoned. Unless they are actively harmful in some way, it's usually best to just ignore them. They are not indexed by Google, so ordinary readers are unlikely to be bothered by them, and if the editor ever returns they might be encouraged to find their abandoned drafts still extant--certainly the converse holds. Also, as far as I understand it, currently all revisions of deleted articles are archived, so counterintuitively deletion actually adds to the storage burden. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've been going through Category:Stale userspace drafts to lighten the backlog. I search for ones that either require speedy deletion (i.e. spam), histmerge or blank/redirect if they have an already corresponding article in mainspace. For the article above, the username suggests the user is part of the NSIT and promoting their business of employment, making it a U5 Notwebhost speedy deletion candidate in my opinion. If you disagree, I don't might the decline. Thank you for leaving me a message :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * More likely just a student? I suspect many people's first few edits include their alma mater's article. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. In this case, I'm find with leaving it alone since it was declined for speedy. Thank you for providing another explanation. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)