User talk:Hmarcuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Hmarcuse, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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)

Nuclear and coal[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bodo Uhse[edit]

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)