User talk:Lynch44

Archives (Index)

2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/August 2024/October 2024/November 2024/December 2025/May 2025/July 2025/August 2025/September 2025/October 2025/November 2025/December 2026/January 2026/February 2026/March 2026/April

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi Lynch44, thank you for reviewing the draft. I've resubmitted with substantial improvements:

• Added a free-licensed portrait of the subject (Commons upload)
• Expanded career history with additional institutional affiliations (Afyon Kocatepe University, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences)
• Strengthened the evidence for WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 by citing independently maintained bibliometric indices: OpenAlex (138 indexed publications, h-index 20, i10-index 44, 1,318+ citations) and Google Scholar

I respectfully note that WP:NACADEMIC provides an alternative path to notability for academics, in addition to WP:GNG. Criterion 1 — "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" — is supported here by the bibliometric profile, including a co-authored study in Science Translational Medicine (a high-impact venue) and senior-authored studies in field-specific journals indexed in PubMed.

I welcome any further feedback. Thanks for the volunteer work you do reviewing AfC. Mesutadiguzel (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note that per WP:INDEPENDENT, sources authored by or affiliated with the subject do not count towards notability. While that does not make them inherently unusable or unreliable, it does mean that you need more than papers authored by the subject to satisfy notability. Linking their Google Scholar profile is no good; there are thousands upon thousands of non-notable individuals who have written a research paper. And yes, while WP:NACADEMIC does indeed state that, it follows that very sentence fragment up with "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Lynch44 20:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Twinkle is still logging CSD nominations at User:Lynch44/User:Lynch44/CSD log after you moved that page to a corrected title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my Twinkle preferences, hopefully that should fix it. Lynch44 10:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lynch44,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lynch44. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joker Mentality, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 22:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lynch44, thank you for your careful and thorough review of the Vila Nova Conceição article. I found some additional references to include in the main body of the article. If you have a moment, please take another look, and if there are still any issues, let me know so I can correct any remaining problems. Thank you very much, and happy editing. Mtvdanilo (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mtvdanilo. The article does look better now, however there are still a few small things that I have noticed. The article at one point claims that "The neighborhood’s land use, that is, the buildings located there, generally complies with zoning laws. The large number of high-rise buildings in Vila Nova Conceição is permitted under this law. Two references are provided to support this, however the second source appears to mention a case that isn't related to high-rises, while the first source makes no mention of zoning law compliance in the neighborhood. Another part of the article claims that "In addition to the high-rises, there are hundreds of single-family homes and commercial properties such as stores and offices." This, however, is also not supported by the source, which talks about a legal battle between a store owner and the city (In fact, this information somewhat contradicts the claim that the neighborhood's construction complies with zoning laws). Up in the history section, I see "In 1885, with the opening of a slaughterhouse in the area that is now Vila Clementino, a tram station was established in Ibirapuera, leading to a slow but steady development of the surrounding area. One of the sources does support the slaughterhouse claim, however neither seem to mention the tram or the connection to the neighborhood. The neighborhood definitely does meet notability guidelines, however we do need to make sure the sources support what is being said. I would look through the article and check to make sure everything being said is supported by a source. If you find anything that isn't supported by a source, I would either try and find a reliable source which repeats what is said, or just remove the information. Feel free to ping me when you're ready for another look. Lynch44 00:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you? Once again, thank you very much for your careful reading and attention to sources; I believe this contributes greatly to the creation of the article and ensures its quality.

I’ll focus on the two points you raised, okay? In the Estadão newspaper article, there is a passage that reads: “Until the 19th century, the prevailing economic activity was agriculture, particularly the raising of beef and dairy cattle. In 1885, a slaughterhouse (Vila Clementino) and a tram station were inaugurated,“ followed by ”At the beginning of the 20th century, there were many small farms owned by European immigrants, where fruits and vegetables were grown, along with pastures. A certain Santa Maria farm was subdivided so that Vila Nova Conceição could be officially founded in 1936." I believe this confirms that the streetcar had an impact on the neighborhood’s character. (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/5FAJg) I also found an article from the Correio Paulistano newspaper from 1935, which demonstrates the tram’s integration with the neighborhood and the city: https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=720216&pesq=%22Vila%20Nova%20Concei%C3%A7%C3%A3o%22&pasta=ano%20193&pagfis=7371

Regarding the sentence “In addition to skyscrapers, there are hundreds of single-family homes and commercial properties, such as stores and offices,” thank you for bringing this to my attention. There is a more complex situation than what is found on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia: there is a tension between the city’s master plan (which allows for greater vertical development of neighborhoods) and residents’ associations seeking to preserve the neighborhood’s identity and limit population density, where I found sources linked to the newspaper Estadão, the Brazilian News Agency, and publications from residents’ associations. Thank you for your careful reading.

I believe I’ve made substantial changes to the article, and I’d appreciate, if possible, of course, another round of review and discussion, which has been so helpful in producing this article. Best regards, and happy editing! Mtvdanilo (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything now looks to be in order, so I have gone ahead and accepted your submission. Thank you for all the work you have done on the page, and your work in general on improving our coverage of Brazil-related articles. Cheers! Lynch44 15:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Edwards Chimfwembe (talk · contribs)
  • User:Edwards Chimfwembe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance to publish an article for a Zambian Musician. Most Musicians from Zambia are not recognized. My draft was rejected because it contains copyrighted material. I don't know which of the materials is copyrighted. End

Edwards Chimfwembe (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted link is provided in the deletion tag on the page. Using WP:EARWIG, we can see that the draft has a roughly 92.5% similarity to the linked page. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and we cannot allow people to wholesale copy material from sites like that. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Lynch44 17:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the advice and time you dedicated to me! Regarding the reviews, before adding them I made sure they were already used as sources on other Wikipedia pages. Take the case of "Allgame": for smaller titles, this site had the practice of publishing a textless review consisting only of a score after testing the game. If you notice, in the top left it says "Allgame Rating" with 2.5 out of 5 stars. While this practice can be debatable—and I completely understand your point—it but is already accepted on many other Wikipedia pages, and the same goes for EAGB Advance and Portable Review. Also looking at the Wayback Machine, both of these sites, along with Nintendo Power, were officially listed on the game's GameRankings page (https://web.archive.org/web/20130514083308/http://www.gamerankings.com/gba/918720-quad-desert-fury/index.html) As for "Nintendo Power", the review is brief because it was an editorial policy of the magazine to dedicate only a few lines to budget titles. This was an editorial choice, but in my eyes, it doesn't diminish its value, both because of Nintendo Power's strict review approval guidelines and because it is consistent with the price range the game belonged to. Unfortunately, I cannot search through European sources to add reviews, because in Europe the game was released as part of a bundle, and the scores refer to the bundle as a whole rather than the individual game. No other NA or UK sources exist; before creating this page, I searched through archives for weeks. The main purpose of creating this draft is the preservation of the game's memory, which otherwise risks being lost. That being said, I am completely open to removing the Allgame review from the draft for the sake of encyclopedic reliability, given that it lacks an actual body of text and consists only of a score and was not even included on GameRankings. ~2026-33445-83 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I partly declined your draft because the (at the time two) sources you cited did not demonstrate that the subject was notable. You appear to have added more since then. I am going to be pretty busy this weekend, so I don't have much time to do another review right now. Lynch44 10:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]