User talk:Compassionate727/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Compassionate727. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

I'm writing to you because an article to which you contributed recently does not meet basic requirements for Wikipedia articles. I've moved the above article to draft and left a comment on the talk page which you can access at the above link Edaham (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Peftiev. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We're in the process of creating our own page for KSL.com. KSL-TV and KSL.com are separate companies now and a redirect will only confuse people. I quickly posted content to the site and am in the process of changing it so it doesn't advertise.

J fur84 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@J fur84: Here are the problems. The article as you currently have it written is still spammy in nature. Phrases like "despite the misgivings of KSL executives" and "despite the fact that it would be competing with paid classifieds" come across as biased in favor of the company. Furthermore, other phrases and sentences, such as "As it's launch predated Craigslist's expansion into Utah by four years[1], it was able to use the network effect to build its online presence during that time, making it one of the largest classifieds sites in the United States[2]," present primarily a narrative rather than just the information itself, which also creates an overall bias in favor of the company, as they to some degree portray the company as a protagonist in a story about the events it relates to. The information itself is not a problem, per se, but the way it is presented requires massive clean-up.

Second, you have so far failed to demonstrate that the website as a separate entity meets the notability requirements. Most importantly, the accomplishments of the company in no way pertain to its notability, which is established solely by the websites significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I'll go ahead and dissect your currently listed sources for you: Sources 3 and 4 are not independent, Source 5 is primary instead of secondary, and Source 2 may or may not be considered reliable (Buzzfeed isn't exactly the best news website out there, although it could fly: I'd like a third opinion on that). Really, the only solid source you've provided is the Atlantic, which alone won't establish notability: there need to be several other sources just like it out there.

Finally, some things I would like to note that don't relate directly to the article. In the future, you need to be careful about edit warring. You have already violated WP:3RR with seven reverts in the past 24 hours. In general, edit warring is considered disruptive to the project, and those who repeatedly engage in it are liable to be permanently blocked. Also, your comment above seems to indicate that you work for KSL.com. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia as part of your job there, you are required to disclose that per the paid editing policy (Note that policy does not forbid paid editors: you simply must disclose that you are one). Furthermore, if you have any other conflict of interest regarding KSL.com (including if they are your employer, and even if they are not paying you to make these edits), you are strongly encouraged to disclose that.

Thanks for reading all of this and trying to work with us. Your cooperation distinguishes you from many users I deal with on a daily basis. Hopefully this information makes sense and is helpful, and please let me know if you have any other questions (especially about the concerns regarding spam and notability that other editors and I have raised). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Cardiganshire by-election, 1893, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Chisora was born in Zimbabwe, but on his wiki page is writed Nationality:British. His Nationality should be British-Zimbabwean. He own just British citizenship? In this case, im sorry for edit.

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Www.sadamukhush.blogspot.com. I do not think that Www.sadamukhush.blogspot.com fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because WP:CSD#A3 says: "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." (A1 has the same statement) . I request that you consider not re-tagging Www.sadamukhush.blogspot.com for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for catching that, I've apparently forgotten about that stipulation. I'll watch to see what happens. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 applies only to web content not to software, even software intended to be used in web browsers or other web-related applications. Speedy declined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this edit on April 19, we deliberately use the HTML entity for an en-dash as described in WP:DOYSTYLE. I was unable to undo your edit because of conflicts, so would you please mind putting it back to how it's supposed to be? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 04:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Howcheng:  Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727, thanks for your responses to this. Do you want to leave it open or would you be happy to move those two paragraphs? I wonder if paragraph 2 could actually go at the end of the Detentions section in Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, since the individuals were arrested after the 2011-12 protests; and paragraph 3 could perhaps go as the last paragraph in the International_conventions section in Human rights in Saudi Arabia, which covers international entities such as the UN. Tarafa15 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

hello Compassionate727...i am rizvi786110 ...this is my first article and the info regarding molana ghazanfar ali rizvi is very true and he is very famous and a notable personality in india specialy in uttar predesh state of india..so please help me regarding this and remove the speddy deletion tag from the article ..thank you.Rizvi786110 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Hi Compassionate727, I saw that you added a tag to the Carole Harmel page saying that "Certain parts of this article read like an essay," I would be happy to consider improvements I could make. Can you please identify the sections that you feel are not appropriate? Thanks for your help. Mianvar1 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mianvar1: Well, I can try. I admit that artists' biographies are well outside my area of expertise. Two things struck me about this article, and they're the reason I gave it a C-class rating instead of a B-class one (note that the overwhelming majority of articles are Start- or Stub-class, so you've already done significantly better than the average editor; relatively speaking, I'm being nitpicky). The first thing is that it uses quotes more than typical. While it's an essay rather than a policy (meaning it doesn't necessarily reflect consensus), Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse contains some useful information on this. One item I'll point out for you is that if a paraphrase would be more concise than a quote, you should probably paraphrase.

The other thing is the phrasing of sentences in some areas. I'll pull an example: "Harmel’s poetic, uncanny juxtapositions—of bodies, props, theatrical settings, and spatial or conceptual references (front/back, female/male)—multiplied the mysterious, expressive possibilities in her images." There's nothing wrong with the information itself, per se, but there are two problems with its presentation. The first is that doesn't attribute the statement anywhere; there are citations, but the current presentation of the statement seems to indicate that it is undisputed or objective fact when it probably isn't. If this is someone's opinion, it should be clearly stated that it's their opinion and it should be attributed to them. The other detail is that the heavy use of adjectives creates positive feelings around the subject (Harmel) without necessarily communicating any information, which is an NPOV problem (and what makes the article read like an essay). At least to me, "poetic, uncanny juxtapositions" communicates no more information than simply saying "juxtapositions" would. A better way of expressing that entire sentence may be something vaguely like: "Critic A praises Harmel's use of juxtaposition to enhance the [something; I'm not sure what 'mysterious, expressive possibilities' are] of her work." (Don't take that to be a strong example of a good sentence, as this is entirely outside my skill set, but hopefully it gets my point across.)

Anyway, hopefully that information is useful. It's mostly stuff like that, about the way your information is presented. I can try to answer any remaining questions you may have, although if I'm being entirely honest, you may benefit more from a peer review at this point; that way you can get the feedback of editors who know more about this particular topic than I do. And I would like to reiterate that the article is very good, all things considered. I can see it being a candidate for good article status sometime in the not-too-distant future. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Thanks for the feedback. Looking back at some of it, I saw similar instances where you have a point, where paraphrases aren't cited and so could appear like my opinion. And some adjectives. I'll take another pass through it and address them. It can be tricky with art, where much hinges on descriptions and the "facts" of its reception are critical pieces that can read as essayistic. Mianvar1 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mianvar1: Agreed. That's why I struggled to come up with specific alternatives to what you wrote: art is based in perception and thus lends itself to description, art (except instrumental music) is well outside of my expertise, and I am demonstrably bad at content creation anyway. I can only point to things that generally don't sound/read correctly. As far as getting decent feedback is concerned, a peer review is your best bet. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message regarding the notability of the programme. The reason I decided to create the page was as a consequence of another page I created - Jim Caine (jazz pianist). Jim Caine was the creator of the programme Sweet & Swing which was an evolution from previous programmes which he devised on Manx Radio. It therefore allows a separate section (See also) which has allowed me to fuse the pages together. talk 21:32, 23 April 2018. (UTC)

@Harvey Milligan: I think I see what you're getting at. The problem is that notability isn't inherited. Just because Jim Caine is notable doesn't mean either of these programs are. Unless reliable, independent sources cover those programmes independently of their coverage of Caine (or they are the primary topic in those articles), the best course of action is to simply merge them into his article.

Incidentally, his article does a relatively poor job of demonstrating his notability, too. A cursory glance through the search engines seems to indicate he probably is, but you may wish to further develop his article with sources such as [1] to minimize the risk of an AfD. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I understand the primary argument within the context stated. I thank you for your input regarding the page; Jim Caine (jazz pianist), and I shall endeavor to enhance the page as and when I can research further information. I don't have an issue with the proposal to re-introduce Jumpin' In (radio programme) as part of the wider Sweet & Swing page.

talk 23:14, 23 April 2018. (UTC)

Create an article for Nicky Jam's song "X" please, it should have its own article page.^[1] 112.204.57.0 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't personally have the relevant knowledge or expertise to create said article. However, if the song meets the notability requirements for songs and you can create it yourself, I would encourage you to be bold and do: you can because the redirect already exists and you are free to edit it (the link to that is here, for your convenience). If you don't feel comfortable placing an article in the mainspace right away, you can always start in the draftspace using AfC (just be sure to go through the article wizard rather than the requests for redirects). Or, if you aren't willing or don't have time to create the article yourself, you can always request someone create it at requested articles, where someone more capable of handling the request than myself will respond to it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Naomi Wu. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fauxcest. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minarchism. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are Most Welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Telephone numbering plan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want me to delete my sandbox? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rjm at sleepers: Currently, there's a {{userspace draft}} sitting on it, which is causing it to appear in Category:Stale userspace drafts and Category:Userspace drafts from May 2009. Basically, I've been going through those categories recently and trying to purge them of stale drafts, because it is generally not considered appropriate for material not related to the project to sit in the userspace indefinitely. If you're using the page, you can just hang on it. I assumed that you aren't: if that's the case, it would be nice if you be willing to blank it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, removing the {{userspace draft}} template wouldn't be a satisfactory way of dealing with this, both because it doesn't address the underlying problem and because (I think) a bot would just re-add it. You should either blank the page or leave it, depending on which you prefer. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't tell people there's any reason at all to blank and/or delete sandboxes/userspace drafts based solely on age and/or quality of the content and/or activity level of the user. If it qualifies for speedy, if it's gone through AfC, or if it violates fundamental policies (e.g. it's an unsourced attack page) then by all means that's what those processes are there for. But not because of time/activity. What would be the point of deleting someone's sandbox -- which is where we want people to test/learn/experiment/draft -- anyway? The only benefit in this case would be to people going to that category in order to engage in that maintenance task -- it's highly unlikely anybody else, except the person who found it useful to begin with, will ever even come across it.

That said, though there is no underlying problem, I would support you if you found that removing that template in particular proved useful. Perhaps Rjm wouldn't mind doing just that to take the page out of that maintenance category? I've never heard of bots restoring that template btw (or adding it at all, except when, say, using one of the article wizards). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to Piyoush. An even worse case of user space-only edits is Stryperfan (talk · contribs). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering, as someone active in MfD, whether you'd be willing to early close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Odisha Bigyan Academy which has been withdrawn? I'd do it myself but I'm an involved editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: As far as I'm aware, nothing about your involvement in this discussion precludes your closing it, due to the uncontroversial nature of a speedy keep due to withdrawal. But I'm of course glad to help, it's been done. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

[2] don't understand this question exactly. If I can, making an edit to improve a draft and remove it from the stale list is a bit less effort and a bit more useful than posting something on the user's talkpage. Nearly every user that has indicated one way or another has been appreciative. Only a couple have been hostile, one because he was saving a draft for Good Article or something I don;t really understand. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Assuming you linked to the section you meant to link to, my question was whether most editors attempt to salvage plausible G13 candidates or simply allow them to be deleted. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok - really hard to tell because I can't check deleted pages, but I see quite a few pages at AfC etc salvaged. Very very few percentage wise are worth trying to save if you are not going to personally get them ready for mainspace because it is unlikely someone else will pick them up. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Jmskydancer/Apollo Fox. I do not think that User:Jmskydancer/Apollo Fox fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This is a plausible start of an article, and so is not "unrelated to Wikipedia's purposes". I request that you consider not re-tagging User:Jmskydancer/Apollo Fox for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Joe407/Aran Packaging. I do not think that User:Joe407/Aran Packaging fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This is a plausible start of an article, and so is not "unrelated to Wikipedia's purposes". I request that you consider not re-tagging User:Joe407/Aran Packaging for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: It is worth noting that I watch all pages I nominate for speedy deletion, and so in cases like this one, I will see the rationale for your decline in your edit summary. You needn't bother posting one of these every time you decline a speedy of mine. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I will refrain from doing so in future in your case, unless I have something significant to add to the decline rationale, which I usually do not. I routinely make such notifications in the interest of transparency, an also I have found that some editors re-tag articles where speedy deletion requests are declined, but seem less likely to do so after such a notification. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am curious why you moved Obama Conspiracy Theories to main space. I have PRODed it but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Self-trout Because I'm apparently not paying any attention at all. Thanks for catching it. I guess I was just so excited to have found a decently-written draft that I forgot to check for other important things (i.e. notability). I've moved it back whence it came, as it's improper to move others' userspace drafts to mainspace only to have them deleted. Thanks again. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Bank Digital Currency. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grangewood Independent School. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Ingraham Angle. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande discography. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Is not in any way inactive - Australian editors have been editing Tasmanian articles and subjects regularly - thanks JarrahTree 14:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Sure, I don't doubt that. The question is whether the project itself, as a place where editors collaborate on improving said articles, is still active. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be very interested in your criterion for tagging, it seems somewhat mysterious considering how many tags you have placed JarrahTree 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I check the project page and its talk page for edits. Per the information at Template:WikiProject status, a project is considered inactive if either of these criteria is met (or either of a couple of others). I only tag them if both of the aforesaid are met. In the case of WikiProject Tasmania, the last time the project page had been edited was just over a year ago, and the same is true of the talk page. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

sorry that I find that a very problematic way to understand how many projects work - in many cases the actual collaboration and work is done in article and project space that is captured more at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Tasmania_articles_by_quality_log - there indeed individuals editing in the project, and although it might not show upon the talk page or other measuring devices, I find it quite annoying to be told that a project I go to time and trouble to work on is inactive. I think that there might be ways that some projects work might not fit the metric device perhaps... it is not always talk pages or main space obviousness - but in more subtle less obvious areas. JarrahTree 14:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If I found a project articles by quality log inactive for length of time, that is another matter, talk pages are deceptive and not a good identification of efforts to sustain quality or maintenance of a project. But then many editors across wikipedia seem to ignore project space, that is talk page tagging - and as a result the weirdness of some stats and metric is caused by lack of understanding of maintenance of assessment procedures JarrahTree 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I think the misunderstanding here is over what exactly a WikiProject is. You're looking at as a community of editors who share an interest; hence activity in that area, in your view, indicates that the project is still active. My view, which I've derived in part from other information pages on WikiProjects, is different: I see a WikiProject as a collaborative effort to improve those articles. Hence, where I feel to see any evidence of collaboration itself (and the fact that articles are being re-assessed does necessarily indicate that members of a project are actually cooperating), I interpret that as a sign of the project's inactivity. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This last point about coordination taking place primarily on article talk pages is valid. Whether it changes the assessment of activity for the project itself is questionable. Nevertheless, this conversation has made me wonder about whether the role that WikiProjects are serving is reflecting the role their supposed to serve, and if not, how they can be recast to better serve the Encyclopedia. Particularly of importance is that fact that WikiProjects underpin the entire article assessment system. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

exactly your very last point is the nub of the whole question - wikipedia assessment system is over ten years old, many editors havent been here that time and have no idea of about how assessment works. JarrahTree 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

- as to your comments about seeking sign of activity on talk pages and main space - I beg to disagree, many projects go quiet on talk - but people are still creating articles, still assessing and still adding material. I think the recent portal discussion does not help - it is all complicated and inter-connected. unfortunately I am in timezone 8+ I am about disappear, thank you for the conversation, lots of interesting aspects of what the hell to do with things. Thanks. JarrahTree 15:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

However, I do not think you should apologise for what you did - it is a very legitimate way of assessing whether collaboration is occurring - from the parameters of the talk page usage and so on. The method by which I assess - now on my user page to look at, is at the best a rather under the bonnet method - it is hardly something that is easily viewed. I do think, having had a lot of soul searching about portals - maybe the next thing is working out how to persuade the editing community to be aware of what talk page tagging and assessment is all about - there are a few million edit types who havent been seen on talk pages despite their astronomical edit counts - perhaps they should turn their talents into making sure that intelligent tagging and assessment is conducted. JarrahTree 03:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just by way of explanation and apology now I have a little more time. There is only a handful of active editors at WikiProject Scuba: Peter Southwood, myself, Cowdy, Legis, and sometimes Gene Hobbs, Anthony Appleyard and a few others. Peter is prolific; the rest of us less so. We all know each other and tend to edit in different niches, so there's rarely any need to use the project talk page, although Peter keeps the project page scrupulously up-to-date. So, yes, in that sense, it isn't terribly active: most of the "low-hanging fruit" has been written about. It's mainly a steady drive to improve quality. Over time, the project has broadened its scope to include commercial diving, military diving, etc. so it's not just recreational – and even then, it contains no competitive element, therefore it doesn't meet the definition of a sport. Or at least consensus has held that.

Anyway, there are a lot of moribund WikiProjects and the work you're doing to tidy up is appreciated. Sorry I was curt earlier. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: No need to apologize. I flagged maybe 70 WikiProjects as inactive and have had 10 reverted in the past 24 hours. Apparently, my methods for assessing activity were quite deficient. I'm going to sit back for a few days and watch to see how many more are reverted before deciding where to next go with this. Also, my saying it was a sport was merely an attempt to find the most relevant parent project, which doesn't matter anyway if the project's still active. Thanks for the courtesy though, it's a nice contrast to this. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)