You've been making steady progress on the article, so as far as I'm concerned, you can take all the time you need. After all, the goal of FAR is to improve the article, not to try to get it delisted. In that regard, I intend to start getting my hands dirty soon, and I apologize for not having done so earlier. --Cryptic C62 · Talk16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. If I were you I'd probably create a subpage for your talk page to do your experimenting on, just for tidiness's sake. Serendipodous05:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'll be able to find sources for the five remaining citation tags, plus the tidal section is still completely unreferenced. Serendipodous18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got two of them; two left in the Early studies section. Need to add a bit there about 20th C studies too. Tides to come. Iridia (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done, and the 20th C studies added as well. There's one citation tag left in Gravity and magnetism. I will improve the citations in the second para of Water, and Current era still needs a coherency overhaul. (done) Iridia (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Iridia (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to wait until the FAR tag was removed, but I think you did it!
Iridia – thanks for your comments re Pacific nations & funerary art. I'm trying to find enough info to put together a respectable section. To be honest, I don't know whether or not I can get it done before the FAC closes... but I am working on it. • Ling.Nut08:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about FARC. Someone once posted about me, "I think <name redacted> has you pegged; you have no clue about how to go along with consensus." At the time, I was deeply hurt. Now I think it was an unintentional compliment. But still, sorry. • Ling.Nut18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those little improvements at the above article. I must take a look at the Moon FARC and see what I can do. Have been busy at a couple of other FARCs of late (Canada (now done); Australia; History of the ACT). Hoping to take Gascoigne to FAC soon. Was thinking about tackling Phobos for GA, but planetary science isn't my field, so i'm mostly working with other people's resources and info. Anyway, nice to meet you. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to stop by! I'd like to see it at FA: there's a lot of people in the community who are saddened by his passing, and he deserves a good biography. I can upload a photo of the SSO 40": wonder if I can find a photo of a corrector plate...
Just say if you'd like a hand with Phobos; I don't work in asteroids myself, but I would be happy to do a whip-round on ADS and pull out some papers. Iridia (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing a fabulous job improving the article, and I'm very grateful for the images and for the idea of the feature quotes, which are marvellous. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I thought the quotes might help to address bodnotbod's impression that there wasn't enough sense of Gascoigne's personality. As far as coverage goes, I have noticed one or two spots from reading the AAS interview: it should be mentioned how in Woolley's era they had to build/refurbish their telescopes "from the ground up"; he wasn't just able to walk over and start using the 30". (done) Also, there should be a mention of the 74" arriving at Stromlo, and Gascoigne using it for research on clusters, since that was his other big research field: understanding clusters was a Big Thing. (done) Iridia (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your preferences
Hi iridia - thanks for help at ben Gascoigne. Just a note re what looks to be how you have your editing preferences set up - your edits appear to be defaulting to showing as minor edits, but they generally aren't the sort of thing I would tag as "minor". Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - article is looking nice. Yes, I do have the auto-tickybox set up: I figure anything smaller than a paragraph of text addition, paragraph restructuring, or similar is "minor", since it can be seen on the mouse-over diff box. Iridia (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a short note to apologise if you thought I was being rude about your photo at Ben Gascoigne. I do see you reasoning for the photo. I guess I just thought a photo of Mt Stromlo would be appropriate. Thanks for your help on the article. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, wasn't worried in the slightest, but thanks for coming and checking. Thank you also for looking over the article. Iridia (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Hi there, good to see you about. Looks like Serendipodous has done some good work since your comment at the FAC re comprehensiveness of literature survey. I've supported, unless you still think its not adequate. Check it out if you have a moment. cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks hamiltonstone; I'm working my way through the article bit by bit, but am very busy in RL at the moment. Will try and finish it off today. Iridia (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That closed awfully fast. I'm puzzled: I was still providing comments at the rate of a few per day, I hadn't even yet reviewed the origin and population sections, which are the most complex, and the review had only been open two weeks. Rather frustrating. Iridia (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for SandyGeorgia but I don't think the "drip feed" method of review is usual for FACs; usually issues are presented in a single list and resolved all at once. FACs are quite speedy affairs; I've undergone ~25 so far and none has lasted more than 2 weeks. We can keep going on the talk page if you want. There's always more to do; heck, Solar System was promoted 3 years ago and I still make substantial changes to it. Serendipodous14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just move your comments to the Sedna talk page. I agree I am still need to fully read the newer reference on how many Sedna's there may be. After all, it is somewhat hard to generalize a known population of 1. -- Kheider (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can have a poke around on the USGS sites. Don't normally need US maps though so it will be a bit unfamiliar. Who here is good to ask about the copyright on these? Iridia (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geology: Structure needs major alteration. Detailed descriptions of the physical features of the volcano should surely be integrated as part of a coherent history: there's a good amount of material, but it's not arranged to present a geological history of the volcano.
I'd also quite like to see at least some of the sources that are listed in Further reading brought into the main referencing: some of those are good refs for this section. The online ones could be integrated most easily. Iridia (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could in theory, but there aren't any coverage gaps in the article as it stands, and I overall don't like using locked journal articles when there are open PDFs available. Check out the 2009 Managment plan papers. I found that and I was absolutely giddy, it has everything. No offense, but an article with a bulk of closed content references is no better then the same without them, just harder to backcheck for the less priveleged :) ResMar03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No coverage gaps" and "thorough literature review" are two slightly different things, and only one provides both comprehensive and well-researched coverage of the topic - which is, after all, that pesky FA 1b+1c requirement. I can understand your preference for wanting to use single-click verifiability, but it doesn't always provide real comprehensiveness. And one of the great things about WP articles is that they can bring information from less accessible books/articles into the public purview, thus counteracting the implicit privilege of research library access... /end philosophical musing :) Iridia (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is already written, and unless there's a notable coverage gap somewhere that isn't covered by the managment papers, there's hardly a reason to add it in. Want to know a secret? It's a completely random thing, me being so heavily involved in volcanism. When I first came onto Wikipedia, I was more interested in WP:MILHIST. But I was told off there that the online sources I was attempting to incorparate weren't accurate enough; as in, text resources = #1. I didn't have an extensive library of books and wasn't entirely interested in going to the library myself just for the purposes of article writing.
Then I found this, which led to this and ultimetly to this. The biggest beauty of writing volcanology is that the USGS and other sites have so much free stuff on their sites, and much of the rest of the literature is in journal articles that I can easily enough bother other people to obtain.
To make a long story short, not needing physical references is one of the things I love about writing in my field =) You might also be interested in my personal musings on the subject. FA has been painful to me, so far I've had 6 nominations and only 1 promotion; in fact nothing I've written has passed in a single bout for that matter! Regards, ResMar02:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considerable repetition of statements such as 'the volcano will erupt again'. This should start with the origin of the volcano in the context of the other Big Island volcanics, and move towards the present, with a subsection for the glaciation. Future activity should have a more detailed explanation of the hazard assessment.
I did a fulltext search and that phrase was never mentioned in the article. The origin has been stated. The hazard assessment is fairly standard stuff... ResMar16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern era: chronological flow. Should this be a summary-style of History of Big Island or some such? Just needs more continuity, it jumps around a bit.
Article doesn't exist. Hopefully a good copyeditor will smooth it out beyond my abilities, however I've got to handle all the comments first. ResMar16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy in Māmane-Naio forest paragraph 3 needs more citation for the language used than a single end-of-paragraph reference.
Summit observatory: rename just Observatory (they aren't elsewhere on the mountain, unlike the Volcanic Observatory across the way)
I think the "Summit" part clarifies its location. It's not a major issue but I like it better with Summit in the title. ResMar16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"has a total light gathering power 60 times that of the Hubble Telescope" - that's rather an amusing way of wording it. Perhaps a discussion of the diversity of telescope types (by wavelength), and the presence of a large number of large-aperture telescopes, would be more useful.
With all the discussion of this many acres for telescopes, that many acres for reserve, the footprint actually occupied by telescopes should be mentioned.
I agree with the comments on the talk page: the balance in Recreational significance needs modifying. It's a dangerous location, and unsupervised visitors shouldn't go past HP. The HP article itself has about the right balance, and should be a Main article link for that section.
A majore ongoing concern. I understand the concern, but so far half my edits to the section has been cleaning up after others, see the talk page. At this point the section is brok-en. ResMar16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question this edit. There are no notes and there is no bibliography, as only 2 books are cited inline, both once. Further reading is a seperate section. All you really did was create two null subsections...ResMar16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully expect notes and hardcopy references to appear as this article gets cleaned up, tightened, and further cited. Doing cited notes can be quite fiddly to set up if editing in a subsection and that note structure isn't already there to add the note into. If that's sufficient explanation, I'll put it back. Iridia (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're out of luck. No such thing will happen. Perhaps you are used to writing on a different topic matter then I am, but there are no signifigant "hard copy" references and they will make no such appearence in the article. Much of what would be hard copy here consists of the free, PDF, online managment plan papers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the referencing style as it stands, and there aren't any "preferentials." See Loihi Seamount for example. As for notes, there are none and I don't really expect to add any. Lastly, what areas need "references tightening up?" Overall, bad edit (also orphaned a ref). Reverted. ResMar18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-studied volcano, with an extensive body of literature dating back decades. For example, there are major non-digital references in the further reading which appear significant. I have access to a library that could probably provide almost anything in this literature, if needed.
I am happy to leave the Notes section nonexistent until notes are created, then.
I didn't say "references tightening up". I will have a better idea of the prose & content changes that are required once I've had a chance to carefully go through the Geology section, which I will look at first, now that you have reordered it.
My two edits to create that change first added information that correctly cited the document, and then corrected the initial orphaning of the ref. Your blanket reversion removed correct information, regardless of whichever formatting styling is used.
Just because they exist doesn't mean they should take presedence over equally reliable, open source content. I'm sure USGS and University of Hawaii Managment Plan writings, on which most of the article is based, are no less important or prevelent then closed access journal papers. The article is complete enough and expanding it to death with minor tidbits wouldn't be good form. There might still be something major missing, which is why I'm backchecking with people. As long as sources are reliable, MOS takes no preference in what they are, and changing the referencing style accounts to dozens of edits for very little reason. Loihi Seamount and Mauna Loa both have equally extensive bodies of literature (well, mor recent for Loihi), but they are not involved in the article proper. In short, because such things exists doesn't mean that they are required to be in the article text. ResMar18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to address all of you concerns and suggestions. Would you mind looking again? Please let me know if I need to address anything else, or if what I did needs to be tweaked. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!22:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of List of planetary features with Māori names
Hi Iridia. I gather that all's well now - I saw Bruce1ee's verified comment. I'm a bit of a DYK newbie - what's the current state of this? Can I expect to see "List of planetary features with Māori names" on the main page soon? (I need to declare an interest here - I'm a Kiwi ;-) TFOWR13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, is it ok if you just hold fire for the next hour while I go through and fix up these refs? I just had an edit conflict. I think we're nearly there. Kotare (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for List of planetary features with Māori names
Aloha. Please look back on your comments on the FAC. I heavily disagree with your issue with "non-text sources" of course: this is an encyclopedia article, not a book being written. In regards to summary style, I have never seen a volcano article written that way, and I've seen quite a few as you can imagine :) ResMar22:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found enough material regarding early history (however, we've messed up the links and have to retrieve them, now), how I can't find much on the Mauna Kea-Mauna Loa interactions. Can you email me anything you got/know of? Thanks, ResMar02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Alaska patterned ground 1973.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Alaska patterned ground 1973.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
I didn't realise what I was getting into... Anyway, I've done some legwork on the three outstanding issues you have raised at the FAC review. Can you check in there and, if you're happy with what I've done, strikethrough your concerns? I'm finding it difficult to navigate the FAC page and see clearly what still is to be done, so it'd be handy. Nice working with you again, by the way! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*laughs* ...yes, this one's been entertaining. Comments struck where done. Good seeing you again too! The new gallery of Aboriginal art has just opened in the national gallery...wish they allowed photography, I could get a ton of illustrations. Iridia (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iridia. Thought I should drop by on the site testing issue. First, I didn't think Hurricane was looking for something like this. I really thought his issue was the WP article claiming it was one of the "best" (rather than having sources claim it), not that we didn't explain why it was "best". I thought both our responses were sufficient, though I can see Hurricane wasn't really convinced. I could be wrong... Second, I'm not sure about a separate article on the subject. I would have thought it would be better as a section of Astronomical seeing and/or a section of Optical telescope - and let's face it, both of those articles could only be improved! One of the problems would be selecting an appropriate title for the WP article. "Site testing" is much too general. It is a term I associate with things like Environmental Impact Assessment for major construction projects. The article would have to have an esoteric title like Large telescope site testing, and that would be hard to find - that's actually one of the reasons i would run with a subsection of another article. But I do agree that such information should be somewhere on WP, so thanks for your work. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When Hurricane said as his/her example that Katrina was not the "worst" but caused the "most damage", that was the bit that made me think it was the lack of information on the site testing process that was causing confusion. But I could be wrong...hopefully he/she will put another comment on the review to clarify.
I intended to put the article at site testing (astronomy); it could perhaps go at observatory site testing instead, if that sounds better. I disagree that it should be a subsection of seeing, since seeing is only one of the characteristics that is considered during site testing. (Seeing is also a technically adequate article, happily). Site testing also applies to more wavelengths than just optical - there's screeds of papers out on site testing in submillimetre, particularly for ALMA's site in the Atacama. I haven't yet gone through those. Plus I haven't even started putting in all the stuff about DIMMs, SCIDAR &c., oh goodness... Thanks for taking a look at the stub. Iridia (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that readthrough - you fixed all the bits I wasn't sure about in the paragraph that I altered the least - great teamwork! I'll take out the redlink, I think. Going to the FAC now. Iridia (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vikos-Aoos National Park
Hallo! Can you strikethrough your comments in [[1]] so delegates don't think that there is anything they are waiting on from the nomination. Off course if there is something else to add about the FAC feel free to post it. Thank you for your time reviewing the article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help in getting this to FA. Your changes look good - particularly making clear that Eggen was the issue, not Gascoigne - but the footnote "The head of the Mount Stromlo design section, mechanical engineer Herman Wehner, was full-time at the AAT during this period, working closely with Gascoigne" needs a source. You might be interested to know that I had some feedback from Gascoigne family members, who were positive about the article, and also drew attention to a few issues, hence my last round of amendments (in as much as I could substantiate their suggestions from the published sources). Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NZ
Hey Iridia. I had another go through the prose at New Zealand and copy-edited, formatted and trimmed back a bit more. I have not added anything extra to the culture section about art/music/literature yet. To be honest it is not really my forte and you seem to know a bit about it judging from your talk page comment so I thought I would see if you were interested. I think another paragraph focusing on the themes would balance the section out nicely. Cheers AIRcorn(talk)02:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on low-WP-time for a bit, sorry. You have made great progress there - will have a look over the article and see what else I can suggest. I might see if I can do some trimming through the politics & generally tighten up the prose. Iridia (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. I had a go at the culture section, but feel free to chop and change (probably focuses too much on history instead of the current culture, but its hard to find reliable sources - they prob don't exist - as to the current cultural state). I left a note with User:Avenue suggesting it might be time for a peer review. I feel I have exhausted my knowledge and have read through it too many times now. AIRcorn(talk)03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) It'll probably take me this weekend to go through it properly. Just a thought - probably consider getting a peer review from both a NZ editor and a foreign editor, to make sure there's both accuracy and sufficient explanation. Iridia (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will put a note on the wikiproject (although I imagine most people there watch the article) asking for feedback on accuracy and content now. Will list for peer review early next week after you have done your read through and request a non-New Zealander. AIRcorn(talk)05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Sorry, you caught me just after I'd left for a trip. No, sorry, not off the top of my head - maybe ask around at unmannedspaceflight.com or Universe Today? Iridia (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. It was a very pleasant camping holiday - there are a surprising number of 80m+ waterfalls in this part of the world. Iridia (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was waltzing through memory lane, reading all the comments from Mauna Kea's history (it's TFA today), and have come to wondering how come you never got this out of your sandbox? Cheers, ResMar05:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I'm going to try again at Hawaii hotspot, and see if I can finally push it through to FA (vital for the FP I want to finish). I'm PRing it here. Not sure if you're as interested in hotspots as in mountainside observatories, but hey, worth a shot right =). ResMar02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Perhaps also ask User:Paul H. (sedimentologist), User:Mikenorton (structural geologist), and User:RockMagnetist (geophysicist) to take a look, and notify WP:Geology. I don't think there's a volcanologist active at the moment, unfortunately. I have a non-wiki volcanologist friend I can ask later.
One bit of advice that may help in the FAC, based on what I saw on looking at try #3. You're writing what will be the most-linked-to reference on this subject on the web; that's the way wiki rolls. Expect people to ask you to have full coverage of the peer-reviewed literature, because you're writing a Definitive Reference. It's a review paper, and those truly are a lot of work! When you write one - it has to be complete. And that means not all the information will already be on the internet. I agree it's tough, but if it were easy, you wouldn't be doing it. The content experts are here to help you, dude: they've dedicated their whole lives to improving knowledge about these topics, so they're keen to have it right. Iridia (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awickert is my go-to geologist. Although I don't have any trouble accessing most resources at this point, the base of the article is already written on Interweb sources, and I'm unwilling to do a bloody rewrite. Still, I'll see how the content goes and then get to fine-tuning; I'll probably end up doing a good bit more research, but that can't be helped. ResMar04:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments: I'd not use that Kansas City Star reference: it is a Letter to the Editor (so counts as opinion) rather than a nominally-researched newspaper article. I would instead use ref 26, which is a proper academic paper, for figures like the total number of measurements made by Sept 2011 (which was where I got that figure for the lede). Also, ref 26 is incorrectly cited at present (it's actually an EPSL article). If you can't get access to the pdf I'm happy to send it to you. Oh, and a minor formatting note: please put your references after the punctuation - much easier to read the text. Good luck with DYK! Iridia (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the a notability tag from this article, based on the claim Second largest optical telescope in Australia. I invite you to add an independent source to support this claim, since currently there are no independent sources in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Priscilla Fairfield Bok
Hi Iridia! Thanks for coming by the SIA project and putting in an image request! Regretfully, the SIA doesn't have anything related to Priscilla Fairfield Bok in regards to archival material or images. I'm sorry about this! I do wish we did. If you do think of other subjects please do let me know. Sarah (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems a pity. I have a suspicion that she'll turn up in unlabelled photos with Harlow Shapley from the 1920s. Could you please reword the page? As currently worded, it implies that this is additionally a page to request archival searches for subjects that may not immediately show up in the SIA search (given you did just have a whole photo-ID workshop, I was hopeful that this was a way to request the services of SIA archivists...). Iridia (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped and uploaded to Commons. Find it at: [[File:HarlowShapley-crop.jpg|thumb|Add caption here]]
Add caption here
I scaled it to a width of 200 pixels (standard for biography infobox). The on-line version of the photo is low quality. I wasn't able to do much to sharpen it. I think that this crop should be OK for an infobox. DocTree (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DNA nanotechnology back at FAC
I wanted to let you know that DNA nanotechnology is up for a second FAC. Your comments on the first FAC were very helpful, and I've made extensive upgrades to the article since then. I'm hoping that you'll revisit the article for this second FAC. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get back here in time: my wikitime is more limited than usual. I will have a read when I can anyhow. Give me a yell next time there's a constellation article; happy to help on your quest to all-FA those. Iridia (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one on Mally's talk re Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1's efforts in the outer solar system. You are seeing that TMA-1 was me, right? Seems to me that the people working on those topics really get modern referencing techniques. Much was already in place; I just took it further and spread it around to more articles. Br'erRabbit07:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iridia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Iridia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Iridia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Neptunian objects in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
