User talk:Hmarcuse

Welcome!

Hello, Hmarcuse, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All additions to articles need to be

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Hmarcuse. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hmarcuse. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

history of Germany after 1945

Thank you for quality articles such as Aleida Assmann, East German Round Table, Dorotheenstadt Cemetery, based on scientific background, for service from 2006, for "I make no claim to great wisdom, just to fairness." - Harold, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Hmarcuse. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

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)[reply

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)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

A NYT obituary suggests notability, but the draft isn't yet adequately sourced with articles showing significant coverage (more than passing mentions or routine reporting) about Daniel in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

Hello, Hmarcuse! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Paul W (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• 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. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

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:

I understand that you're frustrated, and none of us here enjoys declining new submissions that could benefit the growth of this wiki, especially when it's about a historical woman. But unfortunately, we have to stick to the rules. You've already been briefed about our official rules on references and notability, so I won't repeat those. But, as a rule of thumb, we often practice

WP:THREE

, that is, at least 3 references, that are independent, in-depth, neutral, and of course reliable, are needed for the establish of an article's notability (exceptions exist, such as about Academics/Professors).

Unfortunately, the subject, even in your own words:("How does one (im)prove notability of a doubly marginalized person (female and Jewish) whose budding career was stunted by flight from Nazi Germany in 1933?")-does not seem to have multiple in-depth coverage about her life and work. Sure, a lot of sources exist from reliable and independent pubs, but those coverage aren't in-depth enough (such as the NYT obituary). "Why is a recently published collection of 120 of her writings only considered insignificant and unreliable?"- Her works may have been republished as they were of merit, but this does not help establish the notability based on coverage. Her works have been published, -that itself is not of notable coverage, and sure those republished works may have ber bio in each one of them, but this is PRIMARY, not independent).

All this beside the fact that this article is based on research by a woman (wikipedia author EarlyBlue), as well as being discussed in a 2005 MA thesis by a woman. Why would we want to keep Daniel out of Wikipedia?- We don't. But we have to obey the rules and procedures. Being researched by a fellow Wikipedia editor does not constitute establishing notability, nor does being the subject of a thesis by an unmentioned (probably non-notable) person is significant, reliable coverage.

If you could find any more sources, that conform with our notability guidelines, you may add them and resubmit. But unfortunately, as it stands, we can not accept this submission. Thanks for your efforts. I (we) really appreciate it.

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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]