User talk:Alarm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 (September 1 2004--August 17, 2005)

Contents

[edit] SWNB

I removed the SBH info from the main SWNB page yesterday and made a subpage Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Biography. I suggest we make similar subpages for geography, history and other topics and leave the main page for 1) links to the subpages, and 2) very current things. up+land 16:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about the wisdom of this, and I'm afraid that splitting it up would do more harm than good. I think it's wise to keep resource information in subpages, but the requests for articles and the requests for expansion are, alongside the news, the noticeboard's main purpose. The requests lists might have grown to be substantial, but the page is still easy to handle and not extremely long. Having to watchlist and check on a number of topical subpages does not particularly appeal to me. Also, I think there is a risk that specialised subpages might scare off some potential contributors that have enough knowledge to write a decent stub, but don't consider themselves experts in a specific field and therefore deduce that the subpage is not for them.
Many regional notice boards have their full to-do lists on the main page. If the full to-do list should should, for some reason, need to be moved from the main page my first-hand choice would be to move it to a single subpage, like e.g. the Aussie one.
That said, I do see that some things could be done to tighten the format a bit. Perhaps we could change the Religion section into "All dioceses in the List of Dioceses of the Church of Sweden, as well as lists of their bishops, e.g. List of bishops of Växjö."
These are just my initial thoughts on your proposal, and I might very well fail to see some obvious pros with the suggestion. But I'd like you to expand both on why you think such a change would be for the better and how it should be done - i.e. what topical subpages should be created and if their content and/or structure should differ in any way from what is now on the noticeboard's main page. / Alarm 09:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] municipal

Reply has been written to Talk:Municipalities of Sweden.

--Fred-Chess 13:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philately categories

Hello, thanks for your message and my apologies for confusion caused. I'm still quite new and I must admit I haven't got around to scanning new articles yet so I hadn't realised that people might be misled by a title if they didn't know its context.

I've made a note to review the categorisation of the micro reference articles as soon as I can find time, but I'll have to ask you to bear with me for a few days as time is short.

One thing I can't agree with you about is renaming the category to begin with the word "list" as this would lose the profile of the category. There are already several lists in the philately section and I contend that my work is more than a list. It is built on the Britannica model of A-Z micro references. Many are complete in micro form, as where there is a text addition to the date, currency, etc. summary. Others will have a link to a "macro" article (e.g., Abu Dhabi which is finished as a pilot case). But what differentiates the work mostly from other philatelic lists is that it includes numerous ancillary references wherefrom a link is need to the controlling reference elsewhere (e.g., stamp issuers sometimes use alternate names in their inscriptions and overprints).

But thanks for the advice which is very useful and I will get around to it as soon as I can. I've added it to my 1001 Things To Do!

All the best. --Jack 11:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Hello again. This has all been done now. I decided that Jao's advice about pipelinking was the best solution and used the naming convention suggested by you. (Sp-Sz) makes more sense than (Spain-Szeged) because there is always the possibility that an earlier Sp or a later Sz might need to be added. See category:Compendium of postage stamp issuers.

I decided that my work is more than a "list" and the best word to use is "compendium". It's a case of the context of both words in common English usage. A "list" is understood to be a compilation structured one item per line (if it is a vertical list), while in my work no one item is restricted to one line, so "compendium" is the right word to use in that context.

Thanks again for your help and all the very best to you. --Jack 08:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks for the welcome and a small request

I replied to your very kind note on my talkpage, not sure if I should have done it here instead. Anyways, I agreed with your comment on the Just D article and rephrased the wording there (even more). There's an anonymous user who have contributed quite a few articles about Swe hip hop acts (which is good) but who seem to be less concerned with Wikipedia guidelines (which is less good). I've try to follow him/her around and fix links, correct spelling and change the wording where I think it's needed. However, since I'm a new user myself my results have been far from perfect I'm sure. I just put up a few ideas for articles/improvements on the Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. Also, if it's allright, could you copyedit Swedish hip hop - I've made plenty of small changes there recently and it would be nice to have it 'timestamped'. The time for drastic changes (on my part) to that article is over now. At least I think so. --Tsaddik Dervish 20:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw your reply - one of the few things that aren't covered by a convention around here is whether to answer on your own talk page or on the person leaving you the message, so I usually watch any page I've posted to. Anyway, I'm very happy to see that you have decided to stay around and I think you've made some very valuable contributions to the Swedish corner of the English Wikipedia (which has tended to be, ahem, slightly tilted towards 17th century field marshals and members of the Swedish royal family...)
Your article requests all seem very reasonable, although the individuals should probably be sorted under Biographies/music (don't worry, I'll fix this the next time I edit the section - and I also admit that the division isn't entirely logical)
I took a closer look at Swedish hip hop and found it to be generally very good. I did some tweaking, as I've noticed you're fond of calling it, and I sincerely hope you don't think the article's come out worse than it was before. If you want to have some ideas for expanding it further, I would love for it to be a bit more in-depth, perhaps comparing the musical and lyrical styles of the most important artists. I also think that non-Swedes would probably benefit from an attempt at contrasting the Swedish hip hop scene to the hip hop scenes of other countries (although the variety of styles might make that difficult).
Finally, in case you haven't noticed, we've recently been discussing some kind of Swedish-related collaboration on the notice board talk page, and I've staged a "show of hand" to choose the subject for an informal test run. I included Music of Sweden as one of the alternatives. You might want to check out the discussion. / Alarm 22:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for improving the quality of the Swedish hip hop page, your changes were definitely for the better. Good tweaking (I noticed that some people, on a page I was working on, kept using word tweak; I got the gist of the term and liked it since it seemed to apply to any minor changes done to an article). I liked how you rephrased the 'intro' to the article, I had been planning to do so myself but never got around to do it (i.e. not bold enough).
The prose throughout the article could have a better 'flow'. I agree with your suggestions for expansion; a 'Diversification of styles' section, and a comparison section to the US (and other countries). I believe the comparison section could work if it talks about what styles are (comparatively) more/less predominant, etc. I will think about how these perspectives could be incorporated into the article although I wouldn't cry if someone beat me to it to actually write the stuff. Popular culture can be interesting though, and it sort of encompasses a wide range of topics. Honey for the bees and all that.
I'll check out the discussion on the notice board. Thanks for your help. --Tsaddik Dervish 13:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome, and thanks for tidying up the Lars Forssell article! Have found myself with plenty of free time today, so may try to get some more translations completed this afternoon... CLW 12:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peterson(-)Berger

Aha - well spotted! Yes, I've checked the history of the previous article and have only imported two tiny snippets into the newer article - the number of piece in Frösöblomster (six) and categorisation within the "Romantic composers".

That's probably my lot for today, as some "real world" (i.e. paid!) translation work has come in...CLW 16:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Sigerud

You deleted Erik Sigerud from List of contemporary artists with the comment "Revert inclusion of article listed on VfD." But I don't see any listing for him in the VfD, nor is there a VfD tag on his article. I had checked his homepage when it was added and the artist has at least had some exhibits so I didn't deleted it for lack of notability. I wouldn't oppose deleting him though, I just don't see any VfD. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] another small(?) request

I've added a section to Swedish hip hop and would appreciate if you took a look at it and did some copy editing. Many thanks. --Tsaddik Dervish 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes

I noticed you justified or otherwise commented on a lot of your votes... this vote is intended solely to count votes, not proposing new similar criteria to vote on. That should have been done beforehand... -_-; Almafeta 18:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm adressing this at Wikipedia talk:Conlangs/Votes#On the concept of notability. / Alarm 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this. I had looked at the votes but hadn't actually voted myself. I will endeavour to do so before the deadline. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "At least N independent discussions" criterion for conlang verifiability/notability

Please see Wikipedia:Conlangs/Alternative proposal#At least N independent discussions for a possible refactoring of this criterion. Does the refactoring answer your objections? --Jim Henry | Talk 20:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I've given an explanation of my position here. / Alarm 22:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What with the templates?

I think they are useful. However, I feel that I have no support in the use of the Sweden Quality Templates, although they seem to have attracted attention to the articles recieving them, and promoting the SWNB. I feel stupid going around just tagging my own articles though, but I am not so familiar with other peoples work. Also note that I have changed the wording of them to make them suit your critique. (In other words: What Should We Do With Them? -- and: Feel Free To Do Whatever You Want With Them.) Fred-Chess 11:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I sort of waited for someone else (probably you...) to outline a process for deciding which articles to tag (going along with the original wording of the template). I've noticed that the wording has been changed, and that's ok as an adjustment to current reality. But if you ask me, I would propose the following:
  • Only one level is used. (Call it "high quality", "very good", "excellent" or whatever you want.) This makes the system easier to handle and easier to understand for the newcomer. I feel very strongly that it will be extremely hard to judge which articles qualify for "decent"-templates, and which do not. A lower bar will also lead to a rather high number of potential targets that need to be evaluated and, if tagged, continously monitored to make sure they aren't deprecated by further editing.
  • A reasonably clear description of the requirements for getting the tag should be written. (Not as rigid requirements for sources and pictures as at WP:FAC, but fulfilling MoS requirements, decent length and good quality of writing.) The requirements needs to get consensus at the SWNB talk page.
  • A subpage to the SWNB should be created for the discussion of articles. I hope we can do without formal voting, striving for consensus, and that we can keep it very informal. Any article that gets, say, at least four or five users agreeing and no one opposing it gets the tag. If reasonable arguments are made that the article does not meet the standard set, they should be adressed before tagging the article.
Something like that. What do you think? / Alarm 11:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
First a little background info.... My initial hope was to create an objective judgement so that anyone could tag articles. You and Uppland are (it seems) mostly interested in making featured articles, but I myself think that the kind of articles that offers a good description of the subject of say 2 pages are important and worthy of some recognition... and that it therefore doesn't matter so much it gets tagged as a "premium" or "high quality".
But I am in favour of dumping the "decent" category anyways... so lets do that...
Do you think it is possible to make an objective evaluation? (It seem I am the only one to think so -- strange how I usually am the outsider). An article that would be suitable for NE , with a reference and three pages of decent text seem to be "high quality" article. It is not hard to do, but many don't even bother that much, and I hope this would motivate people to do some research and write proper articles and not the avarage Sweden-people-stub of a half paragraph. I have found that I ususally appreciate any article that people have spent time with...
I am also the only one to believe in the quality of hard work it seems. I think that when a person has spent 2 hours on an article, it is good, because it has required him to do some research, and not just written off the top of his head... I do not want to formalize and byrakratisera this issue. It is unfortunate that Elisson regarded these as "awards", when they were infact just intended as quality markers, almost as though one would list Sweden-related articles by size, so to read articles that at least have some substance... It was also my intention to just have a small marker about it on the bottom of an article page saying just that, and not a large colored box... But this was regarded as too unconventional for English Wikipedia and voted down (with the vote result: ALL versus ME...) .
However, this was just background info (you can check the history of each template to see my first design draft) However, if these ideas are not possible, I support all your suggestions instead.
Fred-Chess 13:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think judgement of article quality can ever be objective. People will interpret the requirements differently and will have diffent standards for what is enough. Those arguments could be avoided only if the requirements were purely qualitative (i.e.: at least 200 words and 1 external reference), and I think we can all agree that quantity does not (automatically) equal quality. But it might be possible to be specific enough to make the approval process rather easy. Thinking it over once again, three "supports" should probably be well enough if there is no opposition. Perhaps you could make a shot at formulating a first draft of criteria (possibly glancing at the featured article criteria for inspiration) - then I can rip them to pieces... ;-)
I'm not sure that this process actually will get people writing better articles, but it surely won't hurt. To me, the major pro is that it promotes the SWNB, and that it can help readers to find some gems. If we get that Wikiportal running (I've sort of forgotten about it) they might also serve as the selection basis for the portal "Featured articles".
As for collaborating towards a FA on a specific subject, I think the "show of hands" makes it rather clear that we haven't really reached critical mass yet... / Alarm 18:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions... please...

Hello Alarm. Before I do the above, I want you opinions on the article Malmö Municipality. The template at the bottom lists Malmö Municipality along other municipalites, when apparently Malmö is the main article here. I don't know how to fix this, because Malmö is not really a municipality. Fred-Chess 22:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, it is a list of municipalities in Skåne, not a list of Towns of Skåne, because Oxie, Skanör, Åkarp etc aren't listed. So I decided to be bold and change Template:Skåne County to make it clear in the header that it links to municipalities only. I think that is the only reasonable way to go. After all, the Malmö article is only one click away from Malmö Municipality. "Urban area" articles might have a separate, similar template, but I guess that would have to wait until a significant number of them exist. I don't know if it's at all relevant to keep the template in the Malmö article - it might as well have a "Major cities of Sweden" template, or whatever. / Alarm 22:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Also note that if we want conformity, then Malmö Municipality warrants an article as much as Lidingö Municipality and Skåne County. Fred-Chess 22:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Of course. Totally agree with you here, as think I've stated several times. I get the impression that you believe I have a different opinion in this specific matter. If so, indicate what has led you to believe that, and I'd be happy to clarify my position. / Alarm 22:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skåne in the Skånska article

Good compromise edit. Thank you. P.MacUidhir 20:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! / Alarm 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is the city situated on 14 islands or just Stockholm Municipality?

If just Sthlm Municipality, then "centered" is better, no?. Fred-Chess 14:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I've tried a new approach. It's just that "centered" generally means centrerad, which simply doesn't sound good here. / Alarm 14:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Probably so. Yet "situated" would mean in its entity (I think), so to be correct it would mean that the entire Sthlm u.a. is located on 14 islands. My intention with "centered" is to say that its geographical center is in Sthlm Mun. which I believe is true enough. Fred-Chess 15:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
If you're not happy with my latest attempt (did you notice it?), I'd suggest that you phrase it like you did here, "the geographical center of the city is in Sthlm Mun." / Alarm 15:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Rescue Services Agency

Maybe the article Swedish Rescue Services Agency should be expanded. It is mentioned and linked to in the article International response to Hurricane Katrina. --Tsaddik Dervish 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden quality templates

Do you think this is something...? I doubt it will become something, and a voting process risks becoming a burocratic time waste, because it would be hard to admit 30 articles as "good" if everyone need to be voted on first. It would require quite some dedication that I do not believe exists. Just look on the Sweden Wikiportal...

If you think the idea itself has prospects, I propose another way. You, me, Uppland, and a few others that might be intersted, such as Bishonen, all have read many articles and have some ideas what a "good" article is. It could easily be an individual decision, and if us others don't agree, we could bring it up in person, but I have faith in that we would have the same ideas in this matter. I formulated some basic guidelines on the subpage of my user page, which seems to be partly agreed on by Uppland and you.

I'm sorry but this seems to be the fastest and only good way. The alternative, I suspect, is that nothing will come out of it.

Fred-Chess 14:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Songs centralized discussion.

I implemented your suggestion, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs is the result. The Literate Engineer 05:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Songs centralized discussion.

I implemented your suggestion, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs is the result. The Literate Engineer 05:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I haven't seen your name on my watchlist for a while now -- have you been sick?

Anyways, you haven't missed much except that Category:Swedish buildings is now Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden, I created a sub page for listing of quality articles on the SWNB (instead of deleted categories) so feel free to add quality articles there until a formal voting process is established; all (afik) municipal articles are now in the format "X Municipality", and I decided not to continue separate between municipalities and cities. Also, four articles that were "possible VfD candidates" on SWNB have been filed for that now.

Regards, Fred-Chess 16:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your concern! No, I'm alive and well - and recently emerged from the pile of real life work I've been buried under for the last few days.
I think a sub page with a list is probably a good way to go - it might not even need a voting procedure.
As for splitting municipality articles, that can be taken care of in the future, when there is content enough. As I've said, the ones I found reasonably relevant to split were the major city articles, and I can see that all the top 10 cities have been taken care of, except for Gothenburg Municipality (currently a redirect to Gothenburg). I might do that one myself sometime soon if you don't beat me to it (but don't count it as a promise...).
As for referring to Swedish municipalities, I wanted to back up my position, in case someone else objects (I noticed your conversation with Habj) so I checked with the Riksdag and the Government of Sweden offices. It seems as if they both prefer to refer to municipalities as "kommun" rather than "stad" in formal situations, regardless of what the municipality in question calls itself, since "kommun" is the only recognised legal term. The Riksdag translators always use a capitalized M when referring to a specific municipality, although both "Municipality of X" and "X Municipality" can be used. In Wikipedia, the latter structure for naming subnational entities seems to be heavily preferred, though, as this rather interesting page shows. / Alarm 17:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It's good to know that we seem to be on the right track. A remark about the name at the page is appropriate, I think, which has been done to Stockholm, Lidingö and Västerås I think.
For the record: Our current Municipal/Urban area template actually seems to have been well recieved!! I have seen no complaints about it, and I have all municipalities on my watchlist.
Howevever, that the urban are and municipality are different entities seem not that obvious to everyone. See for example Talk:Sundsvall and last diff on Helsingborg.
Fred-Chess 14:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Odalism

Hi Alarm. I had a look at the article, but it is an extremely confusing article. Considering the amount of pages I have written on early Scandinavian and Germanic mythology culture and history, I should be well-prepared for it, but most of the article strikes me as more or less incomprehensible. If there's anyone here at Wikipedia who could make something out of it, it is Dbachmann. He has been working on right-wing symbolism, and Germanic paganism and Germanic Neopaganism.--Wiglaf 18:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, he actually seems to be one of the last users to have edited the article, but his changes are all minor. I don't know if this should be interpreted as approval, though. / Alarm 19:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The article should probably be flagged with an {{attention}} tag. I'll add it myself.--Wiglaf 19:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counties & Provinces

Hi. Would you object if I merged Dalarna with Dalarna County ; Värmland with Värmland County ; Östergötland with Östergötland County and Skåne with Skåne County ? I think for 99% nobody distinguished between them (if you live in Östergötland you live in Östergötland), and I don't want to confuse readers by forcing them around two separate articles. I will ask Uppland also. Fred-Chess 10:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a particularly good idea at all. A county and an historical province are two separate entities - in several cases, even with different geographical borders - which are both encyclopedic in their own right. Note, for example, the two different (and both rather long) articles in Nationalencyklopedin on Värmland and Värmlands län, and their respective contents. Most, if not all, other Swedish encyclopedias distinguishes them in the same way (including the Swedish Wikipedia - which has some relevance, since an argument could be made to interwiki a potential merged article to two different articles in sv).
Furthermore, I think having an individual article for every county and one for every historical province actually reduces confusion rather than the other way around. We obviously need an article on Dalsland (which has no corresponding county), so we should have one on Värmland for the case of consistency. We obviously need an article about Stockholm County (which has no corresponding historical province), so we should have one on Värmland County for the case of consistency.
Separate articles make the significant and important distinction between county and historical province clear, and still allow extensive linking between the two. I think current wording in the articles makes the difference between county and historical province pretty clear. If not, I very much prefer clarifying the distinction rather than merging the articles. The fact that a lot of people don't know the difference from the start is irrelevant. If the articles are well phrased and makes the point, they will learn the difference - which is the whole point with an encyclopedia. Distingushing different concepts in a clear way is much more important. / Alarm 16:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree on this. There is also a methodological advantage to keeping the landskap and the län articles separate, since the län articles can focus on administration, and the landskap articles on culture and folklore.--Wiglaf 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Affirmative. // Fred-Chess 12:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking of another issue within this scope. How about changing the provincial map to one only depicting Sweden's provinces? I'd guess any map book would make it that way. // Fred-Chess 13:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi Alarm! I wonder if you would be interested in being nominated for adminship? A problem could be the outbreak of editcountitis that has happened among voters, so that your roughly 2300 edits may seem too low for some. Anyway, I think that you have shown dedication and maturity that make you a natural admin candidate. In fact, you are very much an admin already on the Swedish notice board, so it would not be much of a change. What do you say?--Wiglaf 00:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Wiglaf! I'm flattered by your kind words. I'd like to read up on adminship duties and check up on people's standards before deciding. Please let me get back to you on this in a few days. / Alarm 08:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. I have just had a nerve racking nomination with an unusually excellent and brilliant user who almost failed because she had "only" +1800 edits, and some periods of absence. She turned the tide through her people skills, and when people actually read her contributions. I'll nominate you when you feel ready to take the plunge. You should also be prepared that it puts many under great stress to go through it all. So you can take a raincheck and get back to me when you feel that you have enough under your belt. A new feature is also graphs of the candidate's editing patterns.--Wiglaf 14:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sport events in Sweden

Hi Alarm. Just a thought (and please, don't take this as a critism of your English, it's certainly far superior to my Swedish!) - I think it might be better to move List of sport events in Sweden to List of sporting events in Sweden as it sounds more natural in English. I did a quick Google search - I get 105 hits for "List of sport events" and 10,900 for "List of sporting events". I know some might say "Be bold - just move it", but I thought I'd see if you had an opinion (out of courtesy if nothing else) one way or the other. Also, I'm off out to get very drunk soon (don't worry - I won't come back and start carrying out drunken edits afterwards!), and I didn't want to move it and then not be available to reply if you disagree :) Best, CLW 15:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're caught up in the real world or away at the moment. I've been bold and done it. Regards, CLW 09:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Miljonsvenska & nysvenska

Carlos Rojas Beskow used those terms for Rinkeby Swedish in his column in yesterday's Aftonbladet [1], so I thought them worth adding to the article. But you're probably right - I don't consider myself an authority on the subject and didn't bother checking. - ulayiti (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SWNB

I've redesigned the structure on the notice board. The previous didn't serve much purpose, as it was intended for a smaller notice board, and quickly became quite bloated. I think this structure will better serve its purpose. // Fred-Chess 19:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stockholm

Hi, Alarm. I don't quite know who to ask about this, so I'm bothering you, merely because I happened to notice you editing Stockholm: do you know why the article starts with code hell? Like this: "Stockholm (help·info) (IPA: ['stɔkhɔlm]; UN/LOCODE: SE STO)" . It's terribly off-putting. A check of a few other city articles (Oslo, Copenhagen, London, Paris) doesn't throw up anything nearly that bloated and unattractive. What happened? Is it supposed to read like that—the very beginning of it, mark you—in your opinion? Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Human rights in Zimbabwe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish language

Swedish language has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. –panda (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)