Orcaborealis

Hi Orca, I am currently requesting review for the Bjørnøya article and since you have recently edited there, I thought you might like to look into it again. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bjørnøya/archive2, Any constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Thanks. Kosebamse 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will look into it. It is pretty good, really. Orcaborealis 08:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, nice to hear that. Kosebamse 17:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am currently expanding Bjørnøya some further in the hope that it will soon be ready to submit it as a Featured Article candidate (see also Talk:Bjørnøya and Wikipedia:Peer review/Bjørnøya/archive2. As you mentioned that you have the booklet that seems to contain valuable information on the environmental matters, may I once again ask whether you you would perhaps like to contribute some more? I believe it's mostly the environmental matters that need more expanding. Apart from that booklet, I have heard and read a lot about Norway's recent attempts to expand its petrol industry into the Barents sea, but I can't remember the name of that project and was not overly successful finding relevant information (not even on Bellona's website). That would be very interesting as well - if you had some relevant information at hand and could spare the time could you add something there? Thanks a lot, Kosebamse 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I have read the Ottar magazine (published by Tromsø Museum/University of Tromsø) where Bjørnøya is featured, but I don't have it, I read it in the library. I might add some (brief) information in the article. Concerning the petroleum activity, you might be thinking about the Snøhvit (Snow White) project Statoil project page, which is actually geographically where the Norwegian Sea meets the Barents Sea, and with a large LNG site near Hammerfest. There have also been some test drilling further east, but without any really substantial success so far. The sea border with Russia in the Barents Sea is disputed by the two countries, they are now starting negotiations again (which they have been doing on and off for 30 years).

Yeah, that was what I was thinking of, will try to find out more. Thanks! Kosebamse 08:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orca (spekkhuggern?). About your recent addition to "Norway" that Note: The 19 fylker might be replaced with 5 - 9 larger regions by 2010. Do you know any more specifics about this development? Are these plans/debates inspired by devolution in Engalnd and Denmark and Finland? Or by the EU NUTS statistical divisions? Take care! :-] //Big Adamsky 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Big A! The plan for new regions is not new, it has been around for a long time, the influence from other countries is there, but not decisive. The new government has put this (new, larger regions from 01.01.2010) in their "regjeringserklæring" (the negotiations that formed the platform of their government). Furthermore, there are a clear majority in the parliament for larger regions, so this time it seems likely it will happen (only Høyre and Fremskrittspartiet want to abandon the intermediate level altogeter). Kommunenes Sentralforbund hired a professer to look into the matter (Tor Segelstad), and he concluded with 7 regions (Østviken - Østfold, Akershus, Oslo; Innlandet - Hedmark, Oppland; Vestviken - Telemark, Vestfold, Buskerud; Sørlandet - Vest-Agder and Aust-Agder; Vestlandet - Rogaland, Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane, parts of Møre og Romsdal; Trøndelag - Part of Møre og Romsdal, Sør-Trøndelag, Nord-Trøndelag, a small part of Nordland; Nord-Norge - Most of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark). The government need not propose exactly the same regions, off course. The regions will be decided by their responsibilty. Many people would like to see the larger regions get more real power than the Fylke has today (especially after Health care was moved to the state itself (Helseforetak), divided into five regions. There are a broad consensus that the Fylke is too small in many instances, like when it comes to regional development. Orcaborealis 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Orca. Here's some more on the proposals for new larger administrative units:

• Regionalization and devolution (click for next powerpoint slide)

Note also the inconsistent treatment of Rogaland and Møre og Romsdal in various contexts:

• SSB's statistical regions
• Meteorological region "Midt-Norge"
• Meteorological region "Vestlandet"
• Regions of Norway

Cheers! //Big Adamsky 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I've seen most of them before, but the powerpoint document was new to me, very interesting, again is professor Selstad a central figure. There have been a debate in the newspapers, and it seems as the Romsdal landscape in Møre og Romsdal will prefer Trøndelag, if they cannot stay as a Fylke of their own. Wrt Rogaland, I have to admit I was a bit surprised by Selstad, as you points out others have proposed Rogaland as a part of Sørlandet. Selstad's argument was that Vestlandet needed to be strong to balance the Oslo region (Østviken). I would have thought that the southern part of Rogaland (south of the large Boknafjord) incl Stavanger could be part of Sørlandet, as I know people in Stavanger are not to happy about being "governed" from Bergen. However, would Stavanger or Kristiansand be the centre of Sørlandet? Also, if the geographically large Nord-Norge is to be one region, many in the southern part (Helgeland) would prefer to be part of Midt-Norge (the last to say so was the mayor of Rana municipality). Currently, not much is happening wrt larger regions, as everyone is waiting for the new government's proposal. Cheers! Orcaborealis 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You might want to check out the articles and discussion relating to the traditional smaller regions of Norway (Category:Districts of Norway). They have been given the name "districts", since "regions" is the word used for landsdelene. //Big Adamsky 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Orca. Your mediation/opinion would be greatly appreciated in the minor revert war unfolding at Svalbard. The question is basically whether to include an article link and a category that helps explain matters of international law, (which I advocate). Thanks! //Big Adamsky 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, I hope you are well! I noticed that you have removed not just robot image warnings, but also a few more messages so I restored them to your talk page, assuming that this was an accident (otherwise, just remove these messages once more). Anyway, since you were interested in the public debate about merging the Norwegian counties into larger regions, you might be interested in this, as well? Regards // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I had erroneously tagged counties and districts of Norway with the WikiProject Cities banner, I appreciate your and other editors chipping in to correct this mistake. __07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already started, but it seems Finnmark county has already got a rating by Derek C., even if it is not a city....I also wondered why Lillehammer was given mid-importance - is it due to the 1994 winter olympics? Orcaborealis 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

He made some few glitches in cleaning up after me. In one instance he removed {{NorwayProject}} and kept {{WPCities}} :-) As for Lillehammer, with reference to our talk at Talk:Bodø, I'd agree that the 1994 Winter Olympics would be one such event that would raise a settlement (or city, in this case) from low to mid importance. This would also mean that Åsta and Tretten might be raised also due to the train crashes there, although Tretten would have to wait until someone writes about the Tretten accident. Technically there might also be objections with regards to Åsta on account of the current lack of international news citations (although noone would doubt they exist). __meco 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

But the 1994 Winter Olympics isn't recent news any longer....Orcaborealis 09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's no requirement that the event must be recent at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment#Priority_scale. __meco 09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay but on the Bodø discussion page you said recent, quote: "Obviously Bodø must contend with being a low-importance city, unless there is any recent international news coverage of events or disasters. __meco 21:12, 15 July 2007 ". This is not to be pedantic, but the criteria must be consistent. Regards, Orcaborealis 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you seem to have a lot to do with the nice Northern Norway article I was reading, so I thought I'd leave a comment here, rather than in the article. There's a style manual concept called "overlinking", meaning that there are so many Wiki links that they might get in the way for some readers. The convention, as you can read in WP:CONTEXT is to only link once in an article. I think this is especially important for articles in the English Wiki with many foreign place names. A reader who knows the convention will come across a second link, and assume it is not the one they read before, but some place else. When there are many words that are linked -- and many times -- this becomes quite distracting.

It's even hard as an editor to undo "foreign" overlinking, because unfamiliar words need to be checked character-for-character to see whether they really are the same.

I'll go back to the article now, and just pay attention to the cities I've been to. (Grin)

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are right, there are far too many repeated wikilinks. A bit lazyness on my part, as many was repeated before I started working on the article. I now have removed many, will see if I have time check properly. Feel free to remove repeated wikilinks. Actually, the article should have been named North Norway, as that is the correct translation of Nord-Norge. Orcaborealis (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks (takk) for updating me on this opportunity! Orcaborealis (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:Trollheimen1 july2005.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Trollheimen mnt Trollhetta.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Trollheimen mnt Trollhetta.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out that Norway error. Press olive, win oil (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Also, is Bodo under the Cfc example? January average is just above -3C. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Jeroen is still being stubborn. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Bodø (Bodoe) should be Cfc, as summer lasts three months, not four. And yes, he seems to be rather stubborn about that poor map. Orcaborealis (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The other guy who wants that map put it up. I can't revert it because of 3RR. How are we going to settle this with Jeroen? You settled that Milan thing with Dantadd. Press olive, win oil (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jeoren is still being stubborn! Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I'll try to find another map for the Koppen article. Press olive, win oil (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Crazy C83 just made a debate about whether 0C or -3C average coldest month should divide c and d climates. It is on the Koppen climate classification talk page. Just letting you know. Press olive, win oil (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments as the article goes to GA hopefully. Can you suggest or add a better Viking age image? SriMesh | talk 07:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is there anyway you can edit that Svalbard image you added to the Geography of Norway page? It currently is filed as "Spitzbergen", which is a misspelling of the Dutch form of Spitsbergen. The former should only be used in German. Can you change it to the correct spelling? I'm trying to remove as many incorrect spellings of Spitsbergen on the English wikipedia as I can. Thanks. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Ok, I have changed article and it now uses a different image with the correct spelling (not Spitsbergen at all, but Svalbard), this was easier. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

WMO ([1]) states that the January average in Ushuaia for its period of record, which is 1961-1990, is 10.4 °C (50.7 °F), thus Ushuaia barely makes the 10 C cutoff, and avoids polar status. The site you provided (don't have the link) appears to average the data from the entire available record, not simply 30 years as is the norm. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is a borderline Cfc/Et climate, and this should be stated. I can see no trees in the images from Ushuaia. But if you look at the images from Puerto Williams, (not far away) there is subpolar forest. The latter is probably more sheltered and thus slightly warmer in summer. Orcaborealis (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

ok. add the borderline description to the article then? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Im interested in getting climate data for Norway so I can expand the tables for Karasjok and other sites, but the UI of eKlima.no seems rather difficult to use. For example, once I get data, I would like to be able to edit the URL to switch to a different station rather than running through the complicated UI and checking all the boxes and then looking at a dynamically generated page.

I see youve been editing climate data as well. Is there an alternative site that has reliable data for Norway and/or other northern European areas? In the USA we have a similar situation with the obtuse NOAA site run by the government vs many that are much easier to access but not always accurate since they have no obligation to be.

Thank you, —Soap— 17:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I am afraid that is the problem, as you have nailed it. I have sometimes used the climate robot at Weatheronline https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather, which is among the best, especially if there is data availability, but not 100 % accurate. And you might need to use fewer years in statistic to get available data. Infoclimate has fewer years in data base and many errors with extremes, but the averages are not too bad..https://www.infoclimat.fr/observations-meteo/temps-reel/karasjok/01065.html

Meteo climat stats have 1981-2010 averages for some places in Norway, the data seem good for that period. The server is very slow though. It doesn't have Karasjok, but has Kautokeino - even two for Kautokeino, the coldest is Siccajavri in Kautokeino municipality. http://meteo-climat-bzh.dyndns.org/listenormale-1981-2010-1-p159.php

Rimfrost.no will give you accurate historical data, created to see climate history over a long timespan. Limited climate variables, but what is there is accurate. http://www.rimfrost.no/

Meteoblue provides climate data, pretty good, not quite 100 % accurate but among the better. Here is for Karasjok: https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/karasjok_norway_779350 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Orcaborealis (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the detailed reply ... I think I'll hold off on this for now and focus on filling in gaps in the USA. —Soap— 19:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at the three images that you uploaded and considering moving them to Commons. It seems very likely to me that File:Bogen Norway 130703.jpg was taken by you, since like the other two it was taken with a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 330. Moving it to Commons would progress smoother if you would take a couple of minutes to claim credit and/or change the licensing to {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} like the other two.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply