User talk:Hmarcuse

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Will (Talk - contribs) 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nuclear and coal
Please, in your great wisdom, tell me how a comparison between a coal plant and a nuclear plant could possibly be considered "invideous". Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your comparison is intended to incite ill will, especially towards the opponents of nuclear power who thought and think that the Seabrook plant brings many more detriments to the environment than benefits. A comparison that selects one of the worst of many alternatives (including renewable power sources and conservation) makes the Seabrook nuke sound like an environmental angel. A discussion of effects should also look broadly at the entire cycle of fuel production and waste disposal. Why is fly ash relevant? Why not dioxin or mercury, or thorium or strontium? Your comparison cherry-picks two impacts (CO2 and fly ash), while ignoring other important ones, including other greenhouse gases, thermal effluent, and the production of highly toxic radioactive materials. Also, please do me a favor and lay off the sarcasm--I make no claim to great wisdom, just to fairness. Hmarcuse 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seabrook was built in 1990. At that time, and even today, less than 1% of our electricity came from solar and wind.  Coal and gas are by far the largest sources of energy for the electrical grid in this country.  The amount of carbon emissions avoided by a wind farm is commonly, VERY commonly cited.  Nuclear has roughly the same life cycle carbon emissions as wind.  Solar has about twice the amount of carbon emissions.  MANY studies support this, it is the scientific consensus.  It is perfectly fair to quote the amount of carbon emissions avoided by hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and other carbon neutral technologies.  But you're not using an argument backed by numbers or science.  You're using rhetoric.  I do applaud your rhetoric skill, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bodo Uhse
All additions to articles need to be WP:Verifiable so could you include sources for your recent edits to Bodo Uhse? I've tagged all the areas that need to be verified. Thanks. Keresaspa (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The biographical details are from notes I took a while ago in the back of my copy of his stepson's memoir, originally from a 1984 East German biography: Walther, Klaus. Bodo Uhse: Leben und Werk. Dresden: Volk und Wissen, 1984. I didn't note page numbers, but could get the book from the library and see if I can fill them in. The selection of works is based on info from a WorldCat search; I translated the titles (except for the one published in translation). I think you go overboard in requiring references for so many niggley details of biography, unless they are contested or difficult to find. A mere listing of secondary literature at the end of the article, instead of notes with page citations at the end of each sentence (or multiple in one sentence!) is really sufficient IMO. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a dissertation. I think you should remove your "citations needed" unless you are challenging this information. Hmarcuse (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the rules they developed over time through consensus so I'm not going "overboard" I am simply reflecting how things work round here. Information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced so as it can be independently checked for veracity by anybody using the article and that's why we need sources. I'll simply quote the WP:V link I gave you above (which is policy, not opinion): "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.


 * Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this."


 * Clearly it states there that inline references are required rather than "a mere listing of secondary literature at the end of the article" as you prefer. Again, not my rules but those built up by the community over time through consensus. Also I did tag one sentence twice but only because it has two unsourced statements (his date of joining the Nazi Party and his being a follower of Strasser) either side of a sourced statement (his having joined the Nazi Party at all). Just one at the end of that sentence would have been misleading.


 * If you can get the page numbers from the source and add them that would be perfect. I'm not being snippy here, I'm not trying to be awkward on purpose and I firmly believe, given your professional background, that your contributions to German articles could improve them no end but it's just due process on here really. Wikipedia's reputation for inaccuracies is, unfortunately, notorious so it needs to be that bit more rigorous than print encyclopedias. Keresaspa (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2057 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Hmarcuse (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good Article
If you want an article to be recognized as one, please see the proper procedure at WP:GAN (it involves a peer review process). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Got it, thank you, also for the link to the instructions. Hmarcuse (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A. Dirk Moses
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A. Dirk Moses you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A. Dirk Moses
The article A. Dirk Moses you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:A. Dirk Moses for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anita Daniel (March 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Paul W was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anita Daniel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Anita_Daniel Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_W&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Anita_Daniel reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Paul W (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Boisrond-Tonnerre
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Boisrond-Tonnerre, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Hmarcuse&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1219145610 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boisrond-Tonnerre&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1219145610%7CBoisrond-Tonnerre%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anita Daniel (April 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Xoak was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anita Daniel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Anita_Daniel Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xoak&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Anita_Daniel reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

X (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Anita Daniel
I received your mail and it drove me to dig further I'm glad to inform you that I've found sources searching through the Wikipedia Library that has old newspaper archives. And I'll add those to the draft, and you may submit it afterward and I'd accept it. However, you can email me anything you've got. Or better if you could leave those on my talk page. (or add them in the draft if you feel like). Regards. X (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hmarcuse, Update: I've substantially edited it and published the article. Feel free to improve it further. Let's make it better together. Regards. X (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)