Treesolution

Welcome!

Hello, Treesolution, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm Smartse. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smartse I think my adjustmment is right, and the source is the next sentence after my adjustment: It is a potential means of mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming.[2] The process is based on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants, and storing it where it will not enter the atmosphere. It can also be used to describe the scrubbing of CO2 from ambient air as a geoengineering technique. Treesolution (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. As far as I am aware there is no reliable source which you can cite to say that the name CCS is 'misleading' - the IPCC document used to source "It is a potential means of mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming" certainly doesn't mention it and I've never read it before. Information in Wikipedia should only be based on previously published information so that readers can verify that the information is correct. Your addition is what we call original research. Further, your sentence "This technology takes out two life-giving gases from the atmosphere. CO2 that is used by plants to live on and O that is used by mammals to live on." is incorrect - CCS would stop CO₂ being added to the atmosphere, but since there is already too much CO₂ it's not going to affect plants. Even if we were to burn all the fossil fuels on the planet, the oxygen concentration would hardly change so it wouldn't affect animals. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smartse I have changed my text as your comment on the 'misleading' was correct. I have now written that CCS doesn't describe the process. Your remark that my following sentence is incorrect, is incorrect. This sentence "This technology takes out two life-giving gases from the atmosphere. CO2 that is used by plants to live on and O that is used by mammals to live on." is correct as the technology does take out these two gasses. You conclude in your remark "CCS would stop CO₂ being added to the atmosphere, but since there is already too much CO₂ it's not going to affect plants. Even if we were to burn all the fossil fuels on the planet, the oxygen concentration would hardly change so it wouldn't affect animals.", but I do not conlcude that. I only remark that it takes out these twwo gases, and it indisputably does. I cannot juudge whether there is sufficient oxygenn to take it out. I can however judge that if the supporters of this technology are right that it is able to help reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, it will at the same time reduce the O content in the atmosphere with the same scale.

You still haven't provided a source so I will remove it again. Take a look at Earth's_atmosphere#Composition - the atmopshere is 21% oxygen compared to 0.04% carbon dioxide. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually User:Stephan Schulz beat me too it. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be listening... You've know added the same content three times, meaning that you are edit warring. If you add it again you are likely to be temporarily blocked from editing per the three revert rule. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Smartse, but I have added undisputable information. The name CCS stands for Carbon Capture and Storage, while not Carbon but Carbondioxide is stored. The whole article supports my standpoint and clearification and that is what I clearify. I also explain that these two gases that are stored, CO2 and O, are used by plants and mammals to live on. You conclude in your comment to me that this will have no effect on them, where is that based on? Where is your reference on that? I do not conclude anything, I just analyze that this CO2CS technology stores two gases and that both gases are life-giving gases. There cannot be any dispute about my information as it is true and neutral. So I gladly let others control my information, as you seem not to be neutral in this. Maybe you have intrests in this industry? I will therefore add my information again.

Well I give up trying to explain. At least you made me chuckle with "Maybe you have intrests in this industry?". You've reached the bottom of the argument hierarchy: SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC

Hello Smartse Where are your arguments instead of just deleting all the time? If you had arguments that prove that I am wrong, I didn't have to ask this question. Otherwise I cannot explain why you take correct facts out. I have added that the name Carbon Capture and Storage isn't correct, and it isn't as also O2 is captured. So I added that the name should change to CO2CS. Where is the error? Then I have added that contrary to photosynthesis this technology takes two lifegiving gasses from the air, CO2 and O2. Where is the error? You then argue <<this is no problem since there is already too much CO₂ it's not going to affect plants>> . Who says that this is a problem or no problem? I don't publish that. I only say that contrary to photosynthesis CO2CS technology takes out two lifegiving gasses and photosynthesis doesn't. This is again a fact. The whole article describes that CO2 is put underground, so that is a fact which I follow, and I have added a reliable source where it is stated how photosynthesis works. It disconnects the C from the O2. C is stored and O2 is brought into the air. During the night photosynthesis produces CO2. So I only publish facts and you take my edits out based on your own opinion that this is not a problem, instead of facts, which is incorrect. Then a last remark. You state <<Information in Wikipedia should only be based on previously published information>>. If this was so, then Wikipedia would always be years behind, as it would discriminate everyone who has new or original proven ideas. Each scientist or inventor who does a new inventien or discovery, cannot publish this in Wikipedia if he would follow your opinion. Sorry, but I cannot take that serious. So I have added my adjustment again today and will continue to do so until you come with facts that prove that my adjustmentss are wrong.

Well, you may not take it serious, but WP:OR, forbidding original research, and WP:V, requiring reliable published sources, are two of our core policies. Please familiarise yourself with them. As for (some of) the factual and language errors in your edit, please see Talk:Carbon_capture_and_storage#Carbon_capture_and_storage_terminology.2FCO2CS, which also is a better place for discussing the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)