User talk:Rsl12

Welcome!

Hello, Rsl12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

You might be interested in reading this: [1] I think these Brits are suffering from a serious case of anti-Americanism.

I like the way you handled PoD earlier. Well done. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you at Template talk:Asbox#RFC; no need to respond, but I wanted to be sure you knew I'd already done what you kindly suggested. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wanna see it; it actually looks pretty good, lol. Dlabtot (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Graham87 00:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know what happened with your original move proposal. After the RfC ended, I asked someone on the WP:AN board to close it as a move as the consensus pointed in that direction. After I made the request, a bunch of people posted to the discussion resulting in a changing of the move outcome and throwing off the original consensus from move to no consensus, or keep as original titled. It is however tilting back into the direction of move. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that way...I wonder why so many people chimed in after the RFC expired? --RSLxii 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you reverted my reverting of your edits on the Cricket page... except I don't recall reverting you at all! I use a touch screen device that can sometimes send a command, but not load the page if I then click on something else, so looking at the time of the edit, I think that must have been the case. So, it was an unintended rollback. Sorry! The-Pope (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Glad to hear, as I put some work into that section! --RSLxii 15:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, those terms are never used in cricket mainly because both the batting and bowling teams can be attacking (batting trying to either score runs or bowling team trying to take wickets) or defensive (batting team prioritising not getting out or bowling team trying to not give up runs). This can change over-by-over, session by session, player-by-player depending on the game situation. I guess it's part of why we like the game - it is many shades of grey rather than black and white. The-Pope (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it makes sense--in most games, the attacking side (the side trying to score) tries to "penetrate" through the defending side (the side preventing scores from occurring). But in cricket, the concept of "penetration" is best applied to what the "defending" side is doing to the "attacking" side. --RSLxii 17:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To confuse you even further, though what The-Pope says is correct and the fielding side as a whole is not called "the attack", the actual bowlers within that side are often called "the bowling attack". JH (talk page) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This edit by me was atrocious and must have been an egregious copy/paste error. I don't know how it got past me, but I'm glad you found it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]