User talk:IntoThinAir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello IntoThinAir,

New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022


  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.


Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello IntoThinAir,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Please can you add reliable third party sources to establish notability? Do you have any connection with the subject of this article? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have waited four days for your reply to this, as I was keen to discuss with you first.
The first issue is that creating articles without reliable references is incompatible with holding the autopatrolled right, so I'm afraid I need to remove that. I note that this applies not only to the article linked above, but also Brandon Garrett, which I have tagged. It seems to me that notability has not been established for these subjects, and possibly not for some others too.
Secondly, the page reviewer flag may also need removing, unless you can convince me otherwise?
Thirdly, could you answer the question about having a connection to the subject of the article? Have you ever edited in situations where you have a conflict of interest? And, sorry to ask this, but have you ever edited for pay?
Fourthly (and very much a minor issue), why do you create new articles with an edit summary of "Reference edited with ProveIt"? I guess this is automatically produced by some tool, but it seems to be an inaccurate summary when you are creating a whole new article!
Looking forward to your response on the above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eight days on, and you have not made any response to my points, or made any effort to adaquately source those two articles. Are you planning to respond or not? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I will concede that the notability of Stern is questionable, and I have had a difficult time finding independent sources for that article. However, while there are not currently many sources in the Garrett article, I am rather more confident of his notability due to his academic accomplishments.
Second, I have not reviewed any pages in awhile so if you do not think I can be trusted to do that, you can remove that flag as well.
Third, I do not have a personal conflict of interest with Stern. I have edited for pay in the past but have not done so for many years now, and certainly did not do that with the Stern article.
Fourth, I have been using ProveIt for years when writing articles from scratch and that is what it autocompletes the edit summary with, and this is the first negative feedback (or indeed any feedback, as far as I can remember) I have received on that, but I will be happy to write more informative edit summaries when creating articles in the future.
Lastly, I apologize for the delayed response, since I am not as active on here as I once was. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. If this a one-off lapse then there is no issue at all, because we have all made mistakes. You say there is no conflict of interest in this case, but can you explain your relationship to the account Mjsdc549? I notice that you added an image to the article which was uploaded 4 minutes earlier by this account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I can, I was exchanging Twitter DMs with Stern and, just after telling him I had created a Wikipedia page for him, was explaining to him how to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons. He sent me a message telling me he had uploaded the image, and so I quickly added it to the article. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Joseph Stern moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Mark Joseph Stern, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article Orlando (cat) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:


While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Alex Clark (animator) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Clark (animator) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Clark (animator) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]