User talk:Man with two legs

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); 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! Sophia  Gilraen   of Dorthonion  22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You are very welcome. Hope you have fun here - be warned it's addictive! Sophia  Gilraen   of Dorthonion  21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly be the hootoo 2legs, could you? TRiG 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also use man_with_two_legs as my ID on the H2G2 page but I have not logged on for some time --Man with two legs 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Until today, that is. --Man with two legs 09:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you're not the infamous 2legs (now calling himself King Legster, it seems: it's very easy to change your h2g2 name).
 * Fortunately I'm not! --Man with two legs 09:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But you do have a h2g2 account, namely man_with_two_legs. Interesting.

I'm TRiG_Ireland over there.

TRiG 13:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ
I have the support of User:Omegatron regarding my changes, therefore if you have an issue with my changes, please go to the talk page and vote in the opinion poll. Your reversion is not appropriate and can be considered edit warring.24.193.218.207 10:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One reversion does not an edit war make. Man with two legs 10:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please make your opionion heard on the water fuel cell talk page, there is currently an ongoing opinion poll!24.193.218.207 10:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support your changes, 24.193, but you seem to be making an effort to be cooperative and work within our policies. I'm simply trying to cooperate with you instead of revert warring, which just wastes everyone's time. I hope both you and Manwithtwolegs can do the same. — Omegatron 14:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BS reversion, I am actually trying to include citation and I get reverted. Wikipedia is obviously not an openly edited encyclopedia as a person cannot make changes to an article unless they are pre approved by everyone.24.193.218.207 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PER
I have to disagree with your deletion of links to commercial firms in Portable employer of record. If the article is about a class of commercial entities, how can examples of those entities have no encyclopaedic value? To me, commercialization would be if I only listed one such service as a way of promoting it. Listing several without recommendation maintains NPOV.

Rather than change it back, however, I've started a poll on the article's Talk page. I'd like it if you would share your opinion there. Plus, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. If you can cite policy guidelines for your position, I'll learn something. BWatkins 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at External_links. As I interpret it, you should link to commercial sites if they have information that adds to the article but not simply if they are examples of the service the article is about.  If this were not the case, every article would have a list of several hundred companies at the bottom of it.  And there are plenty of examples of 'link spam' where some commercial organisation has got itself into Wikipedia as a way of cheap advertising.  These are routinely removed by anyone who sees them. Man with two legs 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also What_Wikipedia_is_not. Man with two legs 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas
I rewrote Brown's gas, focusing on the patents instead of the crackpot claims. What do you think? — Omegatron 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Brown's Gas except what I have read on Wikipedia plus my default faith in elementary science. What I can say is that your version looks to me like a nice, sensible layout though clearly coming from the direction of conventional science.  My guess is that it will be fleshed out a bit by those who believe in more weird aspects, and the points they raise can be dealt with in due course within your structure.  My one quibble is that a number of the references are to sites that require some sort of subscription, but if nobody can find freer references that is just tough luck.  All in all, very much better than it was.  Have a preen. Man with two legs 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And now it's been nominated for deletion, again. — Omegatron 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with article
Hello Man,

I am sorry that you are interpreting my edits as advertisements. My goal is to help people understand what PER services are by using Wikipedia. I can understand you being suspicious however please know that my intentions are good. I would ultimately like to see the PER article become like Operating system, scroll to "Today", or Network card, scroll to Notable manufacturers. As you can see, there are lists and examples of providers of such products/services of once brand-new and unfamiliar technologies in order to help people gain a more holistic understanding of a concept. As you can see, in the list of PERs I have included 3 different providers of which I am aware - feel free to add others if you wish. Also, I am not the only one to request or see the need for a list of PERs (Jimcooncat and BWatkins). I welcome your suggestions and input as I respect that Wikipedia is a tool for informing oneself. However, simply removing content or adding tags without constructive advice does not help in creating this article.

--TheBackpack 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see both sides of that. Since you wrote that, things have moved on a bit. Man with two legs 21:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Man With Two Legs
What is your username a reference to? I was just curious. Mykll42 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a pure joke. When picking a user-name for the h2g2 site, I came up with several highly original, witty names, or so I thought.  All of them had been thought of before of course!  So I picked this name which makes a meal out of something entirely unremarkable because it seemed a good idea at the time.  Then I used the same name on Wikipedia.  It seems to work so I'm happy with my choice... Man with two legs (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Grenade vandalism
Can you explain the vandalism you removed here for me please? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The date was given as 1221 which is about 720 years too early. Man with two legs 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted talk page
Yeah, I had to delete the topic from my page since apparently he hasn't gotten over our dispute, was watching my talk page, and trying to inflame the situation. So if you're wondering where your comments went to, there you go.--Loodog (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guessed that was it. I think you have done what was necessary. Man with two legs (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Chernobyl
The section of the article in question was about changes in RBMK reactors as a result of the Chernobyl accident. The text removed stated that the moderator was changed. This is false; they are still graphite moderated reactors. The reactors originally used natural uranium as fuel, in the light water cooled, graphite moderated, natural uranium configuration results in positive temperature and positive void coefficients which are fatal design flaws (illegal in western countries). These coefficients mean that increases in temperature and voids (steam or air bubbles) within the cooling system cause an increase in the amount of neutrons in flux within the reactor, which in turn causes reactor power to increase.

Western reactors, by law, must have negative temperature and negative void coefficients which means that when they increase reactor power decreases. The use of low-enriched uranium in RBMK reactors mitigates (somewhat) the risk of the light water cooled, graphite moderated reactor by decreasing the magnitude of these positive coefficients to near zero. The use of low-enriched uranium, the addition of additional and differently designed control rods, and operator lockout of disabling the safety systems are the significant safety changes made to RBMK reactors to prevent another accident like Chernobyl. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Best regards Lwnf360 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew about the use of graphite in the RBMK and all that. When it said "these reactors are still in use" I read it as referring to American reactors with some safety feature alleged to be similar to that used at Chernobyl.  However, it does not matter much because following your changes that bit is different.  I did not like it how it was, so I'm not complaining about your version.  The bit about the moderator was written by me (intending to eliminate the impression that US reactors were at risk of blowing up in the same way) so I am certain what I meant by it!  But that is ancient history now.
 * Regarding enrichment: I remember reading about 20 years ago that Chernobyl did use enriched uranium but the degree of enrichment was increased following the accident. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it although it was likely to have been in Atom magazine (which used to be published by the UKAEA). Man with two legs (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Li style Tai Chi Chuan
You haven't replied to my comment at Talk:Li style Tai Chi Chuan. The unreferenced template for articles quotes Wikipedia policy that "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" from articles, which is what I did. I challenged it with a prod and then invited discussion with an AfD. There are only self-published sources currently available. The links you've provided don't reference Li style that I can see. I haven't reverted the article, but there has been no further discussion. Please respond. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA is under review
Hi there, I see that you are a primary contributor to the article Tsar Bomba. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen as a supplement
Hi.

I'm somewhat confused as to why you deleted my contribution to the 'Hydrogen as a supplement' sub-section on the 'Water-fuelled car' page. The contribution was objective, referenced, relevant information, directly on the subject of hydrogen supplementation.

Furthermore, I think that it is valuable that this sub-section (Hydrogen as a supplement) is linked to the 'Hydrogen fuel enhancement' page.

Please explain if you feel that these are somehow different subjects?

I'm also having trouble with your comment "Even if true, they are nothing to do with using water as a fuel"

I was discussing the practise of injecting pure molecular hydrogen and oxygen into an internal combustion engine, and you say that this is unrelated to using water as a fuel?

Again, please explain further...

I picked up this line from your POV:

"I tend to Inclusionism when dealing with articles about pseudoscientific nonsense. In other words, say it is rubbish, but don't delete the article"

And another line from your POV: "This wastes the time of honest scientists who want the facts to be available"

Yes, exactly. I am a hydrogen scientist and I work all day studying hydrogen. I do “want the facts to be available”. And yes, having to write this to you is a waste of my time. So I would appreciate it if you would go back and re-read your own point of view, and then restore my article back to how it was.

Thanks,

JonathanH13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanH13 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is that hydrogen and oxygen are not the same thing as water. The article is about cars that use liquid water as fuel, in other words use water as an energy source.  Nobody doubts that hydrogen is a fuel and that hydrogen (and oxygen) can be made from water by putting energy into the water, but that is not what that article is about.  There seems to be some confusion on this point even though it is stated in Water-fuelled car.  There is a separate article somewhere on hydrogen supplements.


 * I hope that clears things up


 * Man with two legs (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Miklebe is not User:Mikebe
hi, regarding your note on User talk:Miklebe, that user is a malicious user impersonating User:Mikebe as part of a longstanding edit war. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Can't someone get the bad guy blocked? Man with two legs (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now removed my comment from that page. Man with two legs (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cessna 152 true/indicated air speed
Thanks for your note - no problem. You have twigged me that there is no ref cited for those specs. I have the POH here so I will add it in. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was a bit slow, but that is done now! - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! Man with two legs (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rules
You're right, maybe "spam" was not the right word (although I don't see what other reason there could be to include this immense list without any context--besides suggesting that the context for the rules is for sale on Amazon). But this list of 35 rules is really much too long and detailed. WP Books doesn't have much to say on the topic, though editors there have weighed in on tables of contents, a very similar kind of thing, and argue such ToCs are to be avoided: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article. Besides, it looks awful, running right through the box. What we have now is a list without, in my opinion, any encyclopedic value. If some elements from this list were to be included in a narrative section, that's an entirely different matter--and that would provide both context and a place to put those few footnotes. So, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to remove it again, and I will call it an indiscriminate list without encyclopedic value in my edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Joining the Energy Medicine & Energy Psychology WikiProject
Hi, I thought you might be interested in joining the following WikiProject: WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Energy_Medicine_%26_Energy_Psychology. OpinionPerson (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested? Also, if you do have any friends that you think might be able to help this project, then just invite them. Thanks OpinionPerson (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but I don't really know enough about it to contribute much. My main activity has been in making sure articles on this sort of thing are not deleted. I know that the human body, being very complicated and full of feedback loops, can do things that science would not easily predict.  Also, I have experienced some weird things though never enough to prove to me with scientific rigour that chi and all that really exists (I do know for certain that chi feels like it exists).  That is why I am keen that articles related to "energy medicine" should exist.  But I don't know a lot about it and don't believe all that much of it either! Man with two legs (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

faith in science
Hi MWTL. I checked out your user page as part of our discussion over at the "Operational Amplifier" article. I couldn't help but notice your statement "I know it is unscientific to expect others to share my faith in science because..."

Faith is "the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration". Is science, i.e., the scientific method, an idea without rational demonstration? Or, by science (or for that matter, faith), do you mean something else? Alfred Centauri (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You and I know that science is about evidence rather than faith. But people who don't "get" how science works often don't understand it and miss the point if you try to explain it to them.  For example, courts of law routinely imprison people on evidence that is little better than gossip (or just is gossip) and call it "beyond reasonable doubt".  The hard logic that links scientific theory and fact with hard evidence is something that most people do not come across, do not understand, and do not even suspect exists because outside science and maths, opportunity for hard logic is rare.  They are wrong, but it is counter-productive to try telling them that.


 * For example, it is a fact that evolution is true and creationists are wrong, but it is also a fact that creationists will never accept that despite its being something that is provable beyond not just reasonable doubt, but any doubt. It is also a fact that if you state that point too forcefully then you come across as arrogant and will put off anyone who is not decided which side they are on thus making them less likely to believe you.


 * So my point is that you cannot bully people into accepting scientific proof and is it is unscientific to believe you can. If you want to communicate successfully with non-scientists, you have to be aware that proof that relies on hard logic will just bounce off them and you must instead choose a persuasive style they can relate to.  This is also likely to be more pleasingly readable to people who do get science.


 * In the case of Wikipedia I think articles should be friendly to non-scientists by, as far as possible, avoiding jargon and avoiding the kind of logic that reads like a bludgeon.
 * Man with two legs (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aldrin photograph
''The illumination of the Aldrin photograph referred to by Lundberg is an artefact of altering the brightness and contrast of the image, and does not show in all reproductions. This can be seen in the next section, where this photograph is shown in two versions.''

I am pretty sure that the photograph they are talking about is the one shown - with light reflecting off the heel of Aldrin's right boot - not the famous one that is in the next section. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot about this on YouTube where it is held by many people that it is the picture I indicated. I'll find a specific instance at some point. Man with two legs (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The book Bad Astronomy does mention the spotlight effect in the famous picture of Aldrin. But see this, about the photo I ws talking about.  Maybe it applies to both.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly both have been given as evidence of spotlights being used. Man with two legs (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Star naming controversy AfD
You may wish to comment on the article for deletion page for the Star naming controversy article. Aldebaran66 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dall null test article?
Are you an expert on the Dall null test? I'd really like to find someone who is interested in starting an article about it and who knows enough to make sense. When I read the linked explanation from ATM Workshop I get tense and realize that it is above my understanding level, though I did my first Foucault test in the late 1960s. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not an expert. There is an article about it in Amateur Telescope Making which I have somewhere.  That is referenced in your linked article which I have read quickly and which seems to require access to ray tracing software. I seem to remember that the original version supplied a graph to help with setting up (but I could be remembering wrongly).
 * Man with two legs (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad you're not, but even not, you know more than me. The Foucault still amazes me, even though it is so ancient. I'll have to put a Dall null test article on my list of things to do after I get around to looking up some work on the original test procedure. I can see how it would work, but not how to tell if any given test was right or wrong. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Practical effect of obstruction on an airy disc
I read and agree with your edit about the effect of a central obstruction and recall that was one of my decision points in deciding the focal length (and thus the minimum secondary mirror size) for my telescope. But I'm damned if I can remember where I read it. Do you recall where your first ran across that bit of common knowledge? I'd like to post a source so my additional edit would be less likely of being reverted. Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a nice discussion of the subject in Sacek's online book so I'm using it as a reference. But I'm still curious as to when and where you first ran across the idea.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't remember for certain where since I have known it for a long time. It is quite likely it was in Handbook for Telescope Making by NE Howard; I shall have to look it up.  It is easy to show it must be true by drawing a sketch of the wave function but that is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Man with two legs (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your source is a better one anyway as it has much more detail. Man with two legs (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I dimly recall reading a library copy of Howard back in the 1960s but that was 'way before I took college math so I don't remember any of its theory. Its out of print now, but Amazon sellers have it listed for very cheap plus the inevitable $3.99 shipping. So I may get a copy since I doubt the libraries stock it any more. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked it up and it is not in Howard. There is a bit about how much light goes into the central disc and how this changes with the accuracy of the mirror.  There is also a mention of "diffraction effects" if the diagonal is too big but there is nothing specifically about the first bright ring or the size of the disc.  I would guess I actually got it from Sky and Telescope at least 30 years ago.
 * Something I have learned just now from looking this up is that the effect of the defects in a 1/8 wave mirror are not small compared with the diffraction effects from the diagonal. Howard's figures are:-
 * perfect mirror: 84% in the disc
 * 1/8 wave mirror: 68% in the disc -a drop of 16% of the total energy
 * A crude spreadsheet I have made shows that a 20% diameter diagonal pushes around 7% of the energy out of the central disc which makes me feel better about my new f/4.5 Dob!
 * Having said that, Howard's figure of 68% is not what I expect in the light of what I have read about Strehl ratios so I'm not sure what is really going on. I guess his model is one of many possible cases. Man with two legs (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And then there are those few tiny little craters you can never polish out and tube effects and thermal expansion and sub-optimal mirror support cells and and... ;^) Trilobitealive (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A-25 song
Hello Man with two legs,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged A-25 song for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)