Sometimes, misconceptions become common on Wikipedia. For instance, some editors seem to think that all unconstructive or problematic edits are vandalism, whereas policy explicitly says that intention matters. If someone adds uncited content to a BLP, that's unacceptable and needs to be reverted (or cited) right away, but it isn't vandalism and the edit summary should not call it vandalism. This misconception is common enough that an information-advisory Template:uw-notvand exists to correct it.
I think "Everything must be cited" is also such a misconception, as it is explicitly contradicted by several policy documents. So I'm drafting a similar template here, which cites most of the relevant policy in the collapsed ref section at the bottom. Comments are very welcome. While I strongly prefer cited content to uncited content, I think insisting that everything must be cited as soon as it is added, while suitable for cases like BLPs, weakens the encyclopedia by slowing cited content creation (since citing skills and subject expertise aren't always found in the same person) and strongly inhibiting new editor recruitment. I've cited evidence for that last in that template, too, though as I recall I tried to get hold of the raw data some years back to replot it and failed. HLHJ (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)