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