User talk:Erzengel
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Erzengel has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
- Article length (15 April)
- I’m sorry that the entry on New Imperialism was a bit lengthy, but this was a very complex era of history and very much a global phenomenon that cannot be explained by easy answers. The language is already dense and succinct as well. A shorter version would be left laden with reductionisms, sweeping generalizations, and over-simplifications (a twice-banned user tried that, and the results were horrendous). Or it would just be a basic chronology of myriad disparate events, trends, and developments that would not seem, to any lay reader, interconnected with each other or even related to the subject matter of New Imperialism. Or it would just give an overview of what happened without illuminating why it happened or giving readers prerequisite background and context needed to be able to judge for themselves why this epoch of history unfolded the way it did. While I’m sure that there’s room for improvement, a brief offhand criticism on the basis of length will do little to enhance the readability of the article.
- That would be far too drastic. As it is, each section of the article builds on the previous section. If you spit the article up you’d end up having much more content. Some development explained at the beginning of the page would have to be re-explained in a new article not containing that content. For instance, references the "breakdown of the concert for Europe" or the "breakdown of Pax Britannica" would have to be explained over and over again in many separate articles that would make references to these developments. I’m sympathetic to your cause, but it would be a far better idea to focus on readability rather than length.
- Sadly, the article would probably be more readable if it were longer, which would mean that the prose wouldn’t have to be so dense.
Beat to me updating the FA Cup by 2 minutes Mintguy 16:11 17 May 2003 (UTC)
- Beat me by less (mumble-grumble-edit conflict)! -- sannse 16:14 17 May 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Your NASA logo is now on NASA. I only had to downsize it to 250 pixels wide, put some code around the filename (which is now nasa.logo.250pix.png) and push my Florida pic down the page a bit to get it out of the way. Hope you like it!
Adrian Pingstone 18:15 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your deletions at planetesimal? Pizza Puzzle
It is not editing that annoys me, but rather the lack of communication which often accompanies editing.
- Planetesimals are relatively large asteroids (with diameters of ~10km);
- Asteroids are a type of planetesimal, which still orbits around the sun.
- I have texts which state that planetesimals are asteroids, you apparently have texts which state that asteroids are planetesimals. I strongly suspect that its better to refer to planetesimals as large asteroids since it doesnt seem too correct to refer to a small space rock (your typical asteroid) as a "tiny planetesimal". If you can provide a source for your view, we could rewrite the article to state that X states this, but Y states that.
- It would seem that you are implying that there is a type of planetesimal which is not an asteroid, clarification on that would be useful. In any case, the author I have been reading was quite clear that he considered space rocks to be asteroids which eventually "grew" into planetesimals and then protoplanets and then planets.
It is estimated that a typical early solar nebula may have billions of such objects.
- I can provide a source for this and will do so.
- Changed Terran to Sol simply because I've never heard of Terran being used to describe our solar system. Sol makes more sense anyway since our planetary system revolves around the sun, not earth.
- I agree. I think the text had originaly said "Earth System" which I didn't like. Sol System is much better. The reason I didnt use it, I think, was that I at first tried Sol Solar System which was too corny, in some of my edits somewhere I know I had started using Sol System.
I strongly agree with your comments regarding New Imperialism and beg you to overhaul that page. Pizza Puzzle
Axolotl
[edit]Hey there, I was just wondering, do you have a higher-resolution version of your axolotl photo?--Margareta (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for getting back to me.--Margareta (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Germany national football team
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Germany national football team. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Germany national football team. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Germany national football team – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - MrX 12:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)
[edit]Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of 2014 Pathum Thani building collapse for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Pathum Thani building collapse 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 until the discussion has finished.