"
 Wikinews Australia Day 

I notice you haven't been at Wikinews for a couple of weeks.  However there is an article stuck at the starting blocks for a couple of days that might benefit from another Australian taking a look, so I hope you don't mind my posting here at Wikipedia:

 Australia celebrates Australia Day 2009

(It reports on the cricket in Adelaide, if that interests you.)

  

It is now published.  Good luck for the ODI in Perth!   
Yeah, I pinged someone on IRC to review it, because I wasn't sure of the current standards. Regards,   

 Archived clarification 

 Perhaps I am missing something and you have been requested to archive this; however, as we are still in the middle of voting on motions here, could you please reinstate this?  Thanks.    
Once a motion reaches the majority (or in this case, the majority plus a couple), and has been that way for 24 hours, it is considered passed. Is there any special circumstance which allows you to request the passing of this motion to be delayed?   
The motions passed at 01:51 on today's date, which is less than 24 hours. As well, additional clarifications were made in the last 24 hours. I wouldn't call them ""special"" circumstances, I expect them to remain on the page for at least the 24 hours after the motion passes so that the involved parties can read them.    
Oh, so you'd like me to restore them for three hours then, despite the fact that they are going to read them when I deliver the talk page notifications anyways? Go right ahead. Done. Please also note that in future, given this little piece of silliness by the Committee, everything is going to be archived right on time, and if any member of the Committee objects they need to show me a majority of the Committee supporting their viewpoint before they can do anything about it. It's this kind of ridiculousness—I'm going out in two hours and hence, given the votes over and beyond the majority, it has never been a problem to archive something 3 hours early with such strong support for the motions—that pisses me off about the Committee. We follow the Arbitration Committee procedures, and hence your observation that we need to be ""requested to archive this"" in your initial comment is a patently incorrect line of thinking.
Ridiculous...   
To be more precise, the first motion passed with Newyorkbrad's abstention at 02:22 UTC, and there were two clarifying comments made to that motion following his vote, in part to address his concerns. You're certainly encouraged to have a life outside of Wikipedia; it's one of the reasons why we have a group of clerks instead of just one. If it's not convenient for you to take an action, I am sure that another member of the team will be happy to do so.    

Hi Daniel, sorry to toss another piece of bureaucracy at you, but since technically this was a clarification of the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case, shouldn't it be posted on that case's talkpage? onka 
No, because it served to amend the SlimVirgin case. I will post a link at the talk page of the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case to where the motions are archived, but given the Martinphi-SA case wasn't the one being clarified or altered, it's correct residence is the SlimVirgin talk page.   
 Okay, thanks.  )  I wanted to link to the archive, so I wanted to doublecheck that I was linking to the permanent home.  Carry on, onka 
No probs.   
 Oh, and I have a longer version of my statement at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin/Elonka's expanded Pseudoscience statement|User:Elonka/Pseudoscience statem