User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2010/January

Andrew Sledd PR question
May I respectfully ask what you are doing with Peer review/Andrew Sledd/archive1? The last substantial comment was 2 months ago today diff. Since then the bot has archived it four times and each time you have reopened the PR, but done nothing else. Space at WP:PR is limited, which is why peer reviews are archived after two weeks of inactivity. Archiving just removes the PR from the translcuded list - it is still linked from the article talk page and in theory could be edited too. I doubt highly anyone else will comment on this PR, unless you ask someone to do so. At this point, it might be better to satrt a new PR. Just curious, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry. My wife's family experienced a double death in a car accident about two months ago, a couple of days after I submitted the Andrew Sledd article for peer review, and my free time has been mostly consumed with family matters since. The Sledd article, together with the rewrites and expansions of the other UF president articles, is a personal project of mine undertaken on behalf of the WikiProject University of Florida, and it is a project that I would like to finish. If you think it would be better to resubmit the article for a new PR, please let me know and I will do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, my sincere condolences to you and your wife.
 * As for the peer review, I do not think there is a problem with letting a PR be archived, but still editing it. It is clear that it is not attracting new reviews or more comments by being listed on PR for two months. I think I would archive the PR and leave a note on the article's talk page that you plan to address the issues raised in the PR and will be noting your progress there (or on the talk page if you prefer). Then if you would want to come back to it in several weeks / whenever you have time, and work on improving the article based on the PR and make comments on the PR (i.e. I have addressed all of these issues / I am not sure about this), I do not think it would be a problem. I think you could even copy the issues that remain after this to either the talk page or a new PR. You could also ask Finetooth to look at it again - I do a lot of PRs and am frequently asked to take a second (or third) look at an article and make comments on the talk page. Hope this helps. If you do want the PR archived, please drop a line on my talk page and I owuld be glad to do it for you if you want me to. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I did not hear from you and there were no further edits to the PR in a week, I have archived it. Please note that you can continue to edit the PR if you want (it is just not listed at WP:PR to save space there). You could also open another PR. Please let me know if I can be of assistance, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Dirtlawyer; long time no speak. My best wishes to yourself, your wife and her family; members of my family died quite suddenly a few months ago, so I know the feeling. First off, it's brilliant to see all the work you've done with the University of Florida; sorry I kind of forgot to help out. Second, I'm going to review the Andrew Sledd GAN, so keep an eye out on the review page :). Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and poke me on my talkpage when you've made the GAN tweaks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently received a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeal indicating that, in a judicial review case, it was found that any failure to pass your Sledd nomination would qualify for the Wednesdbury grounds of unreasonableness; to summarise, by not passing it, I made an action that indicated I was stark raving bonkers. As a result, I have now passed the article to avoid liability. on a more serious and less lawyerly note (and yes, I know mandamus is now covered by the CPR) congrats on the article! It's excellent, and has been classified as such :). Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to accept the case on a CFA basis :p. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * done. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say the GA has been passed; congratulations :). Ironholds (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)