|1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11|
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)
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
Identified a missing topic for humanityEdit
- 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)
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)