User talk:Man with two legs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:39, 1 September 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Man with two legs, 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 (~~~~); 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! Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You couldn't possibly be the hootoo 2legs, could you? TRiG 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Until today, that is. --Man with two legs 09:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. Man with two legs 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And now it's been nominated for deletion, again. — Omegatron 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Man With Two Legs

What is your username a reference to? I was just curious. Mykll42 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Grenade vandalism

Can you explain the vandalism you removed here for me please? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date was given as 1221 which is about 720 years too early. Man with two legs 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I guessed that was it. I think you have done what was necessary. Man with two legs (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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