NPP userspace reviewing notes

These are types of pages that I mark as reviewed:

user pages that look like normal user pages: userboxes, short bio description, badges, interests (not incoherent fragments, though)
sandboxes and other userspace subpages with what clearly looks like draft material
sandboxes and other userspace subpages with only the skeleton of an article, as produced by the article wizard, for instance
blank userspace pages (following a discussion at WT:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#What_about_NPP_review_of_(nearly_blank)_pages_or_pages_with_empty_skeletons? (*)

When I see a user page that looks like an autobiography:

Use TW to leave a Welcome-autobiography or uw-autobiography message on the user's talk page, perhaps depending on what I see on the user's contributions page

When I see a user page (not some other place in userspace) that looks like a biography of someone with a name different from the username:

Welcome with TW; leave a talk page message with something like:

 == Other Person Name ==
Your user page User:ExampleUser contains what looks like the draft of a biography article for Other Person Name. Most of the time, your user page is supposed to be about you. If you are Other Person Name, then it would seem you are trying to create an autobiography, which is generally discouraged (but read that article to see what you have to do). If you are not Other Person Name, I suggest we move the contents of your user page to a draft or sandbox where you will be able to continue to work on it with the aim of being able to submit it to the Articles for creation process. You can then put something about you on your user page, but not have it look like the draft of a WP article.

Future: draft biography pages on user page (not other places in userspace)

Welcome with TW; leave a talk page message offering to move

When I see a user page for a name that seems to imply shared use

Use TW to file a UAA notice

When I see a user page that clearly meets one of the CSD criteria

Use TW to tag for CSD. Most common has been
- G5, G11 advertising/promotional.
- U2 nonexistent user (when some other user creates a page outside of their userspace, for example)

These are types of pages that I currently pass over, not marking them as reviewed:

pages that contain only test edits or fragmentary text
pages written in a language I cannot read except when I can determine that they are a biography
wikibooks

(*) There's an open discussion with User:Domdeparis about whether there's a potential loophole in patrolling draft pages that would allow the user to add content and move them to mainspace without them being subject to subsequent NPP reveiw. Continuing to look for an example.

copy-paste merge instructions

When copying within Wikipedia, attribution via edit summary can simply refer to the edit history of the source article (which means that the attribution becomes useless if that article were to be deleted) or by mentioning the contributors by username if there's just a couple.

Example:

(dummy edit: sandbox was created and included content that was originally added to Wikipedia by User:Narayanan, Ananth in Draft:Ananth Narayanan)

In the case where I first had to do this, I got help from TonyBallioni and there was a sandbox that copied from a draft by another user account, then I fixed it up, then wanted to move it to draft but could not because the draft by that name already existed.

After getting the merged content into the draft, the sandbox can be turned into a redirect to the draft.