User talk:Aqwis/Archive2

Norwegian schools
Sorry for the delay in replying. I've only just seen your comments on the Norwegian schools. I was expecting a reply on my talk page! We've developed the criteria for assessing schools as we've gone along. It probably doesn't make that much difference if a school is top or high, but the idea is to have at least one top importance school from each country. So far we've found the alumni to be one of the most effective ways to judge a school's importance but the system is inevitably subjective. These three Norwegian schools are amongst the oldest in the world and there might well be a case for making them all top importance, especially if they were indeed the only schools in the country for many centuries. It's very difficult to compare the three, especially when the articles are so short. I think it might be best to wait until the articles have been expanded and then request a re-assessment. Dahliarose 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bryggen Video
Why not in the article? What is the place of a "media" section if not to show what a place looks like (activity, people, sounds, etc.). Yes, I uploaded it to commons. Yes, the quality isn't great, but Wikipedia won't get professionally produced videos with appropriate copyright restrictions being added to articles. I wasn't happy with how much space it takes in the article (large thumbnail) but I can't figure out how to fix that? Isewell 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, a media section is useless without anything in it. That's why we don't need a media section. Look at good/featured articles about other cities; do any of them have a media section? No? Instead, they have a link to the Commons page about the city, so put the video on Bergen's page on Commons instead of in the article. --Aqwis 15:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlinked Etymology
I apologise for reverting your unlinked etymology edit on the History of Pizza page. Good edits were added to a vandalised version of the page and I missed your good edit when I was trying to sort it all out. Shoebill2 14:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess
Thanks for adding back the colon I carelessly left out when editing the talk page of Business student I had just edited the article to take it out of both Category:Education portals and Category:Education; and then what do I do?

Thanks again for your assistance. Dbiel (Talk) 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Molde
Thanks for your contribs to Molde, Norway. Having relatives there, I have been putzing with that article for a couple of years. However - wouldn't you agree that a SEPARATE article for "History of Molde" is a LITTLE overkill? Secondly - no, I do not think the "surroundings" (which I reverted to "points of interest" (which is what they are - 'surroundings' is not a good word in that context!)) should be moved. It is all about "hubbing". Molde is the hub and focal point for its hinterland, and Romsdal is merely a landscape. Keep up the good work! Sparviere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.31.172 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. According to the guidelines, articles should ideally be no more than approximately 50KB in size. At that point, the article should be split, with the longer sections getting their own articles. Molde isn't close to 50KB long, despite this i chose to split the History section to a seperate article because it basically contained 50% of the text in the article. It was stealing focus from the rest of the article, and is, in my opinion, still slightly too long for a summary. Look at articles like Manchester, which are about much larger cities, and yet, their history sections are not any longer than what Molde's was before i moved it to History of Molde. The split also allows us to continue expanding the text about the history without making the imbalance between the length of Molde and the length of the History section even greater.


 * I agree! It ought to be split. I guess the notion of having a separate "History of Molde" article seemed a trifle overly pretentious for such a small place, but then again - both the intro and the history section ought to be rewritten and condensed in its entirety. The article was is much worse shape three years ago, and there is a strong suspicion (at least harbored by me) that the original was a copy-paste job out of a tourist site.--Sparviere 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite Molde being the hub of the region, the article is about the city, or at least its municipality, not the region. Again i will ask you to look at good city articles, ones with FA or GA status, and you will see that none of them talk about places and "tourist attractions" far, even several (Norwegian) miles, away from the actual city. Sure, the article is about the municipality, not only the city, but some of these places (e.g. Atlanterhavsveien, Bud, Averøy, the stave church, Trollveggen, ++) are like i said not in the municipality, city or even close to them. That is also the reason why it should be called Surroundings, not Points of interest, since the latter implies that the section talks about Points of interest in the settlement (city/municipality) which is the topic of the article, which it does not. This article is about the the city and the municipality, not the entire region, and we need to keep that in mind when writing the article otherwise it will become terribly unfocused.


 * Both yes and no. No, I am under no illusion that these features are actually located within the boundaries of Molde proper (or at least the municipality), and if every site in Norway above the rank of township should claim its adjacencies as their own, there would indeed be confusion.
 * However, it is a fairly widespread phenomenon that one associates peripheral sites with a (relatively speaking) more prominent point. Hence hubbing. Rather than moving them, I think it ought to be made clear(-er) that these locations are NOT necessaritly in Molde itself, but since I do not know which of them are in Romsdal, a wholesale transfer may not be the way to go. Also, I absolutely second a proposal to make that very section shorter - significantly so.--Sparviere 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, i see that you changed the name of ==Toponymy== to ==Name==. I'm not sure why you did that; although i won't claim ownership to the article in any way, please explain why you dislike "Toponymy" as the name of the section that talks about the toponymy of "Molde". --Aqwis 20:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Toponymy? Well, I guess it is a matter of definition. Personally I would prefer 'etymology', since toponymy usually refers to general, corresponding or typical etymological features in a landscape. Eg. the Toponymy of Place-names in the Ridings of Yorkshire (an old scholarly dry title looming at me from my bookshelf), is a compiled and compared study of the trends and evolution of the place names in that region.--Sparviere 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And since you brought it up - shouldn't the whole structure of the article be redone? It seems somewhat arbitrary to me!

My Rfa
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am a native speaker of english. It is the only language I know. The problem comes from being a teen. Trust me, the majority of teens do not have overly good grammar:) --SJP 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason why I thought you weren't a native English speaker was because of the French to English translation infobox on your username; somehow I must have missed noticing your English realname. ;) Anyway, good luck in any future RfAs. :) --Aqwis 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mira Nomination
Hello, Aqwis, Could you please specify what version of this nomination you've supported. Thank you.--Mbz1 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Aqwis 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KunnskapsDEP.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:KunnskapsDEP.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I have handled it. :-) DarkPhoenix 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cadderly Bonaduce
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cadderly Bonaduce, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 09:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bergen
Kan du se på siste endringen min. Prøvde å korte ned på innledningen, og flytte mer spesiell informasjon nedover i artikkelen. Blant annet var økonomiseksjonen ganske tynn, mens det var altfor mange detaljer i innledningen. Prøvde å skrive litt om for å få få det eg flyttett til å passe inn, men det hadde vært greit om du tok en titt. Om du mener det var bedre før, må du gjerne tilbakestille. Rettetast 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (Asking for opinions about my last edit)
 * Jeg er enig i at innledningen var litt for detaljert, og endringene dine er dermed fornuftige - på den annen side er innledningen nå litt for kort, både på grunnlag av retningslinjene (som sier at en artikkel av denne lengden bør inneholde minst tre fyldige paragrafer i innledningen - for øyeblikket inneholder den to, plus to en-linjers derav en (den øverste) som i mine øyne er unødvendig), og på grunnlag av at innledningen skal oppsumere hovedpunktene i artikkelen, noe den for øyeblikket ikke gjør. Noe lignende Belfast hadde vært idéelt, der innledningen oppsumerer artikkelen på en kort og konsis måte, men dekker likevel hovedpunktene i teksten. Forøvrig er for små, en- eller to-linjers, paragrafer et stort problem i Bergen - se under Education, eller setningen om Akvariet, for eksempler - og den bærer gjennomgående preg av oppramsing. Når jeg får tid vil jeg prøve å forbedre tekstflyten på disse områdene, men dessverre skriver jeg ikke særlig godt engelsk selv. (is there a guideline on discussing in a language other than English, by the way? :) --Aqwis 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Norske feminister
Jeg var glad over å se at du hadde skrevet en artikkel om Betzy Kjelsberg. Jeg har påbegynt artikler om Katti Anker Møller, Berit Ås, Aasta Hansteen, og Eva Kolstad, og det er fint at det blir flere om dette emnet. Jeg har også begynt på en artikkel om Feminism in Norway som absolutt trenger mer arbeid, om du har lyst og interesse. mvh --Leifern (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeg vet dessverre ikke nok om feminisme generelt til å kunne legge noe meningsfult til Feminism in Norway, men kan godt arbeide ut fra kilder og skrive om spesifike feminister - får se hva jeg får tid til i nærmeste framtid. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Scott5114's RFA
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RFA nomination. I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your potential support in the future. Regards, —Scott5114↗ 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Varg Veum
Thank you for the clean up. Bearian 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fishala
I'm not a vandal really. Love ya lots like vodka shots! ~ J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.206.88 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Strandgatenbg.jpg vs Strandgatenbg-modf.jpg
I was doing what I consider to be a maintenance run through the images that are found on the page Bergen when I encountered a few images that you retouched there. I liked what you did to Image:Ulriken.jpg but later, I saw Image:Strandgatenbg-modf.jpg which is smaller than the one that is already located at the commons as Image:Strandgatenbg.jpg and I like the unbrightened version better.

Also, when I log into the commons lately, there is a message telling me to make sure that the information template is included on all of my images. When I checked my image uploads, there were a few that I reuploaded from others that did not have the template on them and a few of mine in which the template had been broken. 6 out of 900 uploads had one information template issue or another. I have been putting the template onto your images as I upload them, but the tool that reports user uploads with missing or broken information templates also claims to have a helper bot. This is not about that though, but please, do not consider me a software driven helper bot ;)

I want to change the image on the Bergen page back to the original and I am willing to upload yours to the commons and to apply whatever templates it should have but I would like your 'blessing' to do this. I really enjoyed the time I spent in Bergen -- so much so that I would even say that it was when I was the most myself, as I would like to be in this world. It is a little more north than I have been most of my time but it was so much more like the place I consider to be my home than the one I am in. Norway was not France. -- Carol 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I can reconstruct what has happened here with these images. The image you improved was uploaded in 2005 by someone else entirely.  It was saved (maybe with GIMP even) with 85% jpeg compression.  Then you improved that image a lot last August and recently (November 9, 2007) the original photographer uploaded a version that was 90 or 92% compression and much sharper.


 * I am just going to make those changes to the Bergen page. Feel free to undo them for whatever better reason you might have than the reasons I have just given for making the change. -- carol 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Decade nostalgia
Although I agreed with your proposed edits to decade nostalgia, please don't carry them out until a consensus is reached on the talk page, as some would not agree with such a radical change as you made. Instead of deleting all but a sentence of the article and starting over, it would probably be better to only delete the parts you consider original research or POV (which, I have noticed, is most of them), and that only after a consensus has been reached about those sections. -- Qmwne 235  18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Needsrefernces
Hi. I'm deleting this template, because we don't need another redirect to Refimprovewhich already has the following redirects


 * Ri
 * RI
 * Additional
 * Cite sources
 * Cleanup-cite
 * Cleanup-verify
 * Cleanup cite
 * DisputeCheck
 * Fact-check
 * Fact check
 * Factual
 * Few references
 * Fewreferences
 * Improve-references
 * Improve-refs
 * Improve references
 * Improve refs
 * Improvereferences
 * Improverefs
 * More references
 * More sources
 * Moreref
 * Morereferences
 * Morerefs
 * Moresources
 * Not verified
 * Notverified
 * Ref-improve
 * Ref improve
 * Reference-improve
 * Sources
 * Unreliable
 * Verify

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:25 22 December 2007 (GMT).

Merry Christmas
From Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Editor review
What is this?Dogboyinamerica (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Editor review is a way that users can have their contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide tips and pointers on areas for improvement. Editor review seeks to review your contributions as an editor only, not as an administrator candidate." --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
  

Dear, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. &mdash; E  talk 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA - optional questions
Hi there, I and a few other users have asked some optional questions on your RfA. I'd be grateful if you answered them to help me. Cheers! EJF (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year!
Hi, Aqwis. I wish you a successful, healthy, peaceful and happy new year. :) Best wishes from —αἰτίας

PLEASE answer the questions!
Could you please answer some of the questions on your RfA? One of the questioners has now decided to 'strong oppose' because they are not answered yet. Thanks EJF (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am answering the questions right now and apologize for not having done it earlier. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Worth the wait, they were very good answers. Decided to strong support. Good luck! EJF (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Administrators' how-to guide and Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Rudget . 18:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gratulerer! Rettetast (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Tiptoety  talk 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and takk. :) --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :-) —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CIS Cup top scorers
Hi Aqwis, I've noticed you have recently removed the CSD template from this article, I'm unsure why, unless the nominator didn't provide sufficient reasons for the nomination. The article is already part of Commonwealth of Independent States Cup. Anyway, I've nominated the page for deletion, so just in case you had some other reasons for removing the tag, feel free to drop by to have your say, cheers! Ban Ray  23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

alternative
Interesting take on things. The OED, my source for grammar/meanings lists "alternative" as a meaning for "alternate," but if you think "alternative" is better because some sources believe only it carries the general meaning, so be it. I appreciate you looking it up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

 * Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Volapük
Hi Aqwis! I found your name via the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought you might be interested in this discussion: Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you think that deleting stubs is not the way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight against it with your vote. Thanks! Smeira 18:33, 10 Jan 2008