Almost all of what you reverted was obviously to anyone even glancing at it simply proper boring copy editing. Nothing more. Take a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Hern%C3%A1ndez_(umpire)&diff=1022230333&oldid=1022229964

And the deletion that you point to, as was clearly explained in the edit summary-did you read it?, was because the statement lacked an RS source. Which is obvious. The “source” is a only a claim in a complaint - of course a non-RS - and one that was dismissed, for heavens sake. What are you thinking?

Please review what you have done. And restore what you have reverted. Seriously - you think it best to not inline the name of the judge? What are you possibly thinking? Etc etc etc.

Google Books ref toolEdit

Is the Google Books reference tool down? I'm asking you because I see that you have used it in the past based on your user page. I have been receiving an error message for over a week and I'm not sure where to report the issue. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

{{ping|SL93}} Not sure sorry. Haven't used it for a while now. Aircorn (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

referees notabilityEdit

Hi. Given there is no guidelines for referees notability, I'm wondering if there have been any proposals. I think establishing guidelines for their notability would be very helpful. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hey. No proposals that I know of. Many sports wikiprojects include (or exclude) referees in their guidelines. I have thought it would be useful to create a summery of that (i.e. copy referee notabilty guidelines from individual projects into one easy to reach page). Including some overarching advice would be good, in particular how to deal with cases when the only reports are negative match descriptions complaining about a decision that goes against their team. I haven't done much with referees for a while, but would be willing to help if you want to start one. Aircorn (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RfA 2021 review updateEdit

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Identified a missing topic for humanityEdit

See this. I'd appreciate your thoughts, and maybe we could expand it a bit using the source cited? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hey Piotrus}. I appreciate the heads up. Aza24 was a big influence on the Arts section. I only really wanted to get the article into a decent shape as it was in a bad way when I came across it. I don't really have much attachment to it beyond that, except for trying to keep it from degrading. My only concern with your edit would be adding too much to this article as it is covering a very broad topic and needs to be kept very much in summary style. So I would be against expanding it too much and if possible would prefer it integrated into a existing paragraph. I see you mentioned splitting humanity out on the talk page. That may be a good approach as this article covers human the species and not so much human the concept. Not got a lot of time to help at the moment and my next big project here is going to be food when I get the time. I trust you and most of the editors watching the Human page enough to keep it to a good standard and still have it on my watchlist. Cheers Aircorn (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cool, and kudos for tackling the giant overview topics like those! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sandra GoudieEdit

hi there! Just re your recent revert than undo over on Sandra Goudie, I wasn't trying to sensationalise or editorialise. I found it hard to balanced and also kept it short and sharp. I definitely think it's notable, considering the media attention that it's received. I'd be happy to trim it or find another way for it to more clearly gel :) Nauseous Man (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nauseous Man Yeah. I was editing on mobile and removed more than I meant to. My phone is a bit crap at the moment. I didn't like the "because despite being a community leader" part and only wanted to remove that bit. It seems unnecessary to say that and a bit unencylopaedic. Agree with the rest of the article though. Maybe need to keep an eye on Wikipedia:UNDUE considering it is a Wikipedia:BLP, but I don't think we have breached that yet. Aircorn (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Aircorn thanks for the feedback, I've changed it now. Does that look better? Nauseous Man (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]