Misplaced Pages

Archives

101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110

111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115

Note about the last month

Thanks to everyone for their patience with things I couldn't deal with over the last month. I had a series of massive assignments which were due in late August, and I really needed to get started on them. I had managed to do an average of about 20% of each in the last two months, and took an estimate that there was a good likelihood that it would probably take me another two to three to finish them off (given all my other commitments). However, to my surprise, I was actually further progressed than I thought, and now I'm basically done except for formatting, referencing and bibliography in all of the major assignments. That means I'm back here basically :)

Although I do have end-of-trimester exams over the next week or so, I'll still be about occasionally, and then things should be back to normal with general classes and assessments after that. Again, my apologies for those who had queries who either waited or were diverted to other locations. Please feel free to contact me and I'll try to make up for my time off to catch up. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-sysop

Done. Welcome back! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

teh lies...

"I had a series of massive assignments which were due in late August, and I really needed to get started on them" I was wondering what you were doing, helping out in wikisource and all... Guess that must be your negligence towards your studies... :p —Dark 09:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly - one of them was on Dow Jones and Co, figured I may as well get a nice copy of it on Wikisource to complement the ugly Austlii version :) Daniel (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... as long as it keeps you away from hailstormcruft... —Dark 09:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) Anthøny 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington

Just a note to let you know that when a protected deleted page is created, the protection is dropped. It appears that it was your intention that this redirect be protected, so I have protected it now. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome back :) Stifle (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The things you learn :) Thanks very much for reprotecting them, and it's great to be back. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Daniel you can explain to me why you closed early, ignoring the previous deletion review to allow recreation altogether, which you admit in your closing overrules limiting to the redirect by putting protection on? I know there were BLP concerns, so email if necessary. DGG (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator closes the deletion review about the article (May 7) proper as allow recreation, they will unprotect then. The previous deletion review (May 7) wasn't closed when I acted (May 16), so I have no idea where you came to the conclusion that I " the previous deletion review to allow recreation altogether". As I noted in my close summary, if the May 7 deletion review closes as allow recreation, they will then unprotect the redirect and the article will then be recreated. I don't follow on what grounds you feel my actions here were improper. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Good to see that you're back. :) Acalamari 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Daniel (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming committee. Looks like your hailstorm work has paid off :p —Dark 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I have permission for images that I need to upload... Daniel (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Permission to groan in dismay? —Dark 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dee-nied.

Re: Links in Camera Lobbying

Please feel free to change them to standard links; I had no idea the secure proxy ones would be a problem for anyone. Kirill 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I was always told to archive RFARs after 7 days. Where'd the 5 days come from? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discretion. When something gets to 0/4 and there's no activity in two days or so, and the case has been up for five, it's generally OK provided there's no real chance of any developments which will swing it around to accept. This has been "unwritten law" so to speak since I began being involved with the clerking process in early 2007. This doesn't, however, affect the "10 days for non-clerks" rule. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah so it's a bit of wiggle room. Ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The heck?

Who do you heck do you think you are characterizing my concerns and comments as trolling? Even actual legal court decisions can be criticized. Why can't arbocom? And this isn't even tied to any decisions by arbcom on a dispute. -- Cat 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they've made their point clear and your comments are to effect of "well screw them, I deny they can control the way RfAr works". What you seem to forget is all the RfAr pages are designed for the community to interact with the Committee, not the other way around, and as such Committee have control over the format and composition of all pages in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/* and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/*. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)