User talk:Rowsdower45

Oh, periodically. Usually not nearly so bad, though, heh. :) Fortunately we've got some nice tools, ourselves. I was gonna go for a welcome template, but saw you've been around awhile. Thanks for the help! Luna Santin 07:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your citation needed edit on Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2007 as there was already a link for the candidate, please to to history to see changes. Thank you. - Comedy240 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the linescore box. I wasn't sure about the formatting. Yours looks a lot better! Cheers. (What a match!) DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the box score works well for tennis as well as baseball. Wow, has this been a day for sports or what? The injury time win for the football team, and then this match! Remember that Chinese saying "may you live in interesting times"? Are we ever. Go USA! (And TCU in the CWS - sorry, I got one of my degrees from there :-). Take care! DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:110th Congress, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive found it necessary to fix a few of your edits since you're not smart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.36.57 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US gov races 08 edited.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jerry Kill page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to use boring encyclopedic languages. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your addition to this article. The interpretation you put on it counts as WP:OR without a valid reference. In fact, the line in the poem refers to one innocent of such a relationship, so you won't find anyone to back you. Without such a reference, the fact that a line from Pope's poem was (mis)used for the film title counts as WP:TRIVIA. One last point is that the section where you added the comment covers poetry, not films. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want discussion? Start here. Doc talk 07:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I would like to inquire about the reason why it is incorrect or inaccurate to list Ted Bundy's cause of death as Capital punishment or execution, and more correct or accurate to list it as "state-sanctioned homicide." The former gives a more precise idea of the nature of his death, while the latter seems to bring a certain bias to the discussion. If there has previously been a discussion about this topic, it has been erased from the talk page and I am entirely unaware of it. Thank you. Rowsdower45 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for responding! This (the cause of death) has actually been a longstanding issue with this article in particular, and many sockpuppet accounts have been used to simply revert the consensus that the direct COD was Homicide. I am pretty sure that you are not one of those sockpuppets, and that is a good thing. Trading "Execution" for "Homicide" is not a bad thing at all, but the entire homicide thing is based on a COD on a death certificate. Another notorious serial killer's death certificate lists under Item 20a five options: Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide, Undetermined). This is the general basis of classifying Bundy's death as a homicide. Doc talk 07:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, understood. The previous reverts and talk page edits suggested a somewhat confrontational tone that I wasn't quite sure what to make of, was my only problem. If all is as you say, then the WP:3 I submitted will die a gradual death and it will be left at that. Thanks for the response. I am more than willing to discuss my edits under the assumption of good faith at any time. Rowsdower45 (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:3 is perfectly fine, as it fosters discussion on the issue. All is good! Cheers, Rowsdower45! Doc talk 07:58, 30 September 2015 (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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rowsdoner. I see where you're coming from and I've expanded the text to make it even clearer. For the future, you might want to check out the WP:BRD process i.e. that if someone reverts an edit, the next step is discussion on the talk page, not reverting the revert and so on. That risks an WP:EDITWAR which is discouraged. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for my error on the Abraham page. I have reverted myself to your version and was wrong to not review more carefully. No excuses. My bad and sorry to waste your time on what was a very good edit.... Lipsquid (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit. It is fine to provide a specific in place of a theoretical rules violation. However, in three passages I identify in my Edit Summary undoing you, you are speechifying rather than writing "encyclopedic" text. If the Cotton Bowl is really the most "infamous" case (which is the wrong word), or if it was the basis of the Unfair Act rule, these assertions require citations. To be included in the article, you need to show (through citations) more than that this was a palpably unfair act, but has something to do with the adoption of the rule. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha about the citation issue. I was getting my info from our own 1954 Cotton Bowl Classic page, another time I'll work on a version that integrates the citations from that page.Rowsdower45 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you got the flowery language about what was in the tackler's mind! I have reapplied your edit, a bit more matter-of-fact, and have copied one citation from the Cotton Bowl article. Cheers! Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Holy Roller (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Curran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Right 88, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 New Jersey General Assembly election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Moriarty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aight cool. No warnings on user talk pages then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowsdower45 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote. You should not place warnings on user pages. Feel free to add them to user talk pages. And my edit notice relates to WP:TALKCENT, but you're proliferating this discussion on your talk page and mine. Your argument also has a few holes, but I can discuss that separately.

You appear to be a novice editor despite your time on Wikipedia. You've already had one complaint about jumping to an RfC before completing discussion. I suspect that you will get more. You should have grouped them all under one RfC.

I do not believe that the RfCs are actually policy related, which is how you created them, as they are related to how to apply a policy is applied within article space. WP:RFCCAT states The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. So, that's going to be another problem. They may be "Society, sports, and culture" sport related, but now that a bot has processed the requests, it's too late to change them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cheese and crackers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]