User talk:Roger Davies

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Advertising

WP:CRAT is watched by 139 people, most of whom I suspect are inactive or already watching lots of other pages. Wouldn't it be better to find pages like WT:BOT 397 people, WP:FA 1298 people, and WT:POLICY 1,111 people to advertise these things? Not saying we need to delete WT:CRAT, just that I'm not sure how effective it is. MBisanz ^talk 07:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. I've just advertised there too and will add them to the list for future announcements.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC Elections

I'm hopeless. I can't find the page again. Do you have a link, and I'll recast my vote as advised. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:SecurePoll/vote/60 :)  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

World War I contest awards

Hi Roger, how are you mate? Per Eurocopter's request for ideas on awards for the World War I contest, I posted a stand on the contest talk page here with your poppy idea. Eurocpter likes it, so we were wondering if you would know of someone who would be willing to create the awards? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bryce. Sorry about the slow reply, I've been in France. I presume this is to modify the service awards so that they have poppies under the stars, and to put a poppy behind the golden wiki? Unfortunately, I no longer have Photoshop (it was on my laptop-before-last which I've given away) otherwise I'd do it. If you get absolutely stuck I can still do something with Paint, though the results won't be very good. In theory, Bellhalla, Noclador or EyeSerene could do it. There's an existing poppy image File:Royal British Legion's Paper Poppy - white background.jpg which I've just modified to make File:Poppy cutout.PNG, which could be used for the background image.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, mate, I hope you had a pleasant time in France. :) I just left a note on EyeSerene's page then, asking if he would be able and willing to create the awards, so hopefully we can have them done soon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Relucio

Appears to be socking again to get around his temporary topic ban of University of the City of Manila via User:Nash17. See this edit, which appears to be classic User:Richard Relucio. (Note that several months ago I'd blocked User:Nash16 as a Relucio sock). I'll leave it up to you whether you'd like to reblock RR (I've already blocked the sock).OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for alerting me to this. I contacted the editor to ask for his comments and as I have had no response so far I've reblocked him. If and when he replies, I'll ask the committee to formally review the position.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WWI contest

I've put some designs on the contest talkpage (at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_I_task_force/Contest#Designs). EyeSerene^talk 12:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this workshop. There are clearly advantage to SecurePoll but very legitimate opposition to it also. I think your suggestion in RFC II is excellent and satisfies both views. Far superior to my own madly complicated system. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My sig

Thanks for the appreciation...:-)

AruN_KumaRTalK 09:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

well, you didn't offer comments then, but maybe you can now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on compromise option

Hi there, just letting you know I've requested a clarification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#New_compromise_solution. -kotra (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Happy-melon has offered a response to my clarification request there. I'm not sure if Happy-melon's explanation is exactly what you had in mind, though. You said "Then, once the election closes, an overall tally is published, along with the individual tallies for each candidate, specifying which voters supported and opposed them, with say a week set aside for public scrutiny." (emphasis mine) Happy-melon, however, says "...after that time they would be public, and would be public in perpetuity." In your proposal, are the votes made public "in perpetuity", or only for a week or so? If "in perpetuity", what occurs when the week (or so) is over? Is that when the elected people officially begin their terms? -kotra (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that at the end of the week's scrutiny, the appointments are made, taking into account any stricken votes. The data remains public; there's no point in trying to put the genie back in the bottle :)  Roger Davies ^talk 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also am concerned about the possbility of the compromise in view of comments by User:Happy-melon, as noted at the RfC. —Finn Casey * * * 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved at User talk:Happy-melon. Best wishes! —Finn Casey * * * 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballots and mob rule

Hi Roger (or anyone else reading), I was just wondering if it has been proposed that the ArbCom vote be public, but editors be limited to support or oppose without comments? I don't know if that addresses any of your concerns, or if the idea has already been dismissed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

One issue with this is that it tends to lead people to create subpages describing their rationales, which they then linked in the form of Support and anyone seeking to curry favor with them will of course click the link and figure out how to vote to curry favor. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)