User talk:Strait

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Blog (drink) AfD 2 Gold Standard Theory of Gravitation 3 Request for citation for your update on Neutrino oscillation 4 Accelerator categories 4.1 Oh, and Welcome 5 Show Ref that Proves Nucleus is Not Necessary 6 neutrino oscillation 7 List of sex positions 8 A barnstar for you! 9 Orders of magnitude (time) 10 Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess 11 Nothing 12 Reference on Automatic 13 Flare 14 Pictures 15 Fisting 16 Everything 17 leapfrog google test 18 doggy style 19 Butterfly sex position 20 Breast article 21 Please use a bit of common sense 22 sexuality pages needing attention 23 Generalizing sex positions article 24 Breasts 25 Ejaculation image delete debate 26 Kiloton, megaton, etc. 27 Missionary Position Article

[edit] Blog (drink) AfD

I appreciate your civility in the AfD. I know it sucks to have a brand-new article put up for deletion, and I'm sorry about that. Nothing personal, we just disagree about the encyclopedia-worthiness of the subject. It is a neat, fannish thing. · rodii · 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to create a blog (drink) entry in the Wiktionary, but I'm a neo there; can you take a look and see how well or poorly I've done? --Orange Mike 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your addition. Can you link me to it? In any case, I don't usually edit Wiktionary, so I'm perhaps not the right person to ask. --Strait 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it ain't there; must have messed up bigtime! --Orange Mike 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Standard Theory of Gravitation

I reverted your change, because I'd like to see the occasional flash of style/wit in Wikipedia. Stick around a while and you'll probably appreciate better why I like this wry phrase (with capitalization to emphasize that it is not to be taken too seriously), which has been used by Steve Carlip as well as myself. If WikiProject GTR has its way, the current scientific status of gtr will be well explained, among other things by placing it in the context of competing theories such as Brans-Dicke, not to mention work towards a quantum theory of gravitation. ---CH 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that capitalization will indicate to most readers "don't take this too seriously". Capitalization in formal documents indicates proper names, not lack of seriousness. (In fact, I'm not sure capitalization ever indicates lack of seriousness as far as I've seen.) However, I hardly feel like fighting about this, so have it your way. Strait 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll think about some more and see if I can't find a way to address your concern while retaining a bit of style.---CH 18:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Might "Real Soon Now" be an example?

[edit] Request for citation for your update on Neutrino oscillation

Would you be able to provide a citation for your update to the mass difference equation for neutrino oscillation, please? Mike Peel 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Are you talking about the equation directly below "The phase that is responsible for oscillation is the difference between two of the mass eigenstates is often written as"? I derived it myself. You can easily verify that the units are correct and that the coefficient comes out correctly if you plug in hbar and c. This sort of thing is often left as an exercise for the reader in articles and books on neutrino oscillations. However, if I manage to find an explicit reference, I will cite it.

By the way, I plan to do some significant work on the "Mass differences" section in the future, as it really doesn't explain much. Strait 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation added. Strait 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accelerator categories

Hi there. When I set up the current category system for particle accelerators/detectors, I had the accelerators in Category:Particle physics facilities and the experiments in Category:Particle experiments. That is still what the categories say, but for some reason you are adding the latter category to the accelerators. Can you please stop? -- SCZenz 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. When I found the "particle experiments" and "particle detectors" categories they were in obvious disarray. I commented on this in their talk pages and barly got any response ("go for it" was the sum total 4 weeks after my first post), so I have been trying to clean up and expand them on my own.

Let's be clear about what should go where. I will not make any more such edits until we have a consensus. I understand if you would like accelerators to not be listed as experiments. I have two comments on that, though. First, many experiments, especially the older ones, are not distict from their accelerators. For instance, I doubt that the Cosmotron had seperately named detector that should have its own article, so I really think that it should be listed as an experiment. Second, I think that even accelerators that have a seperate identity from the detectors that use them could be legitimately considered part of the experiment. So either the "particle experiments" category should include them or, if it is only to include detectors, that it has a bad name and should be called something more like "particle detector installations".

-- Strait 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here we go:

1. Category:Particle detectors is for generic stuff.
2. Category:Particle experiments is for specific detectors; I don't see the problem with this, since experiments in particle physics are detectors of one sort or another. (Is there an exception I've forgotten about?)
3. Category:Particle physics facilities is for accelerators and labs. I know that the experiments at old accelerators were small, and do not merit separate articles, but the Cosmotron still wasn't an experiment and I don't see why it should be categorized as one.

Also, in the future you might consider visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and posting organizational questions on the talk page there. That's the only place with critical mass for actual discussions on stuff like this. In this case, I'm the only one who's ever been seriously interested in these categories, so the two of us might as well hash it out here. -- SCZenz 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Without doing some serious digging in the library (the references are too old and/or obscure to even have scanned versions online), it is difficult to say whether the physicists who used the Cosmotron considered the detector being used with the accelerator to be part of the thing called "The Cosmotron". If it was, then it's clear that Cosmotron should be in "particle experiments" because it was a particular installation of a particle detector. If it wasn't, then I would still lobby for it to be there, because it did participate in experiments and users who are looking for particle experiments won't be able to find it any other (obvious) way.

Regardless of your thoughts on my last paragraph, what do you think of the idea of renaming "particle experiments" to something which is hopefully less ambiguous, such as "particle detector installations", or even "named particle detectors"? --Strait 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraphs, I actually do have articles at my desk that discuss experiments at accelerators like the Bevatron. They describe the experiment separately from the detector, and many different experiments were used at each detector (far more than today, in fact). Thus I don't think the accelerators have ever been considered experiments in their own right.

Regarding the second paragraph, yes a less ambiguous name would be helpful. However, those two are kind of cumbersome, and I don't think they're much clearer than the current name; that is, being named isn't they real issue, but rather being a specific detector is the issue. So we should fix the name, but perhaps think more about it first. -- SCZenz 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, and Welcome

I realize you're pretty new here, so let me add a welcome to Wikipedia, and a more polite invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. I realize I started out a little harsh (and a bit too defensive of "my" "turf"), but I'm actually glad to have someone else working on maintaining the experimental particle physics articles. I've never been completely happy with the organization scheme (for some of the reasons you point out); maybe together we can find a more sensible setup. -- SCZenz 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have joined. --Strait 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show Ref that Proves Nucleus is Not Necessary

You and I will continue to go back and forth on this topic unless you provide a

I have provided you with a reference already. The Review of Particle Physics published by the Particle Data Group clearly states that it can occur with atomic electrons. If you don't believe them, that's your problem. They are a citable authority and you are not. --Strait 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will spend some time to review articles outside of the very limited set provided in the link to E144. I still contend that the lone thesis and the 3 publications provided by the E144 page links do not show any evidence that matter can be produced by pure photon collision in the total absence of matter.

Yes, I never claimed to have the experience of PDG, but neither did I claim, as you do, that the PDG published what you claim they have published. The lone PhD thesis provided in your link shows Feynman diagrams that show the electrons are essential for the so-called process of matter creation. The papers do not address matter creation in the sense you are suggesting, pure photon-photon collision.

Bvcrist 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what the topic here is. I am responding to your challenge "Show Ref that Proves Nucleus is Not Necessary". --Strait 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be some mixing of ideas because we are both working to improve two closely related articles: i.e., Pair Production and Matter creation, so it might appear that I'm confused...

Thank you for the recent papers you've shared. I appreciate your assistance and sharing. Unfortunately, you've not sent a Rev of Particle Physics by PDG. You have very kindly shared PP by Photons (Rev in Modern Physics Journal by NBS), PDG on Electron 2002, PP by Orbital Electrons [in cyclohexane] (UCB) and Passage of Particles Thru Matter by PDG. Thanks!

If, by atomic electrons, you are using the orbital electron paper, then I see no reason to accept even though you think it is an acceptable logical extrapolation of the data in the presence of the Carbon atoms.

If however you are pointing me to the Passage of Particles Thru Matter by PDG, then I need to know what page or chart to look at because the only nearly relevant chart (figure) is 27.17, which does not seem to support your contention.

I really do want to determine if what you say is true or not because it would help my study and understanding, but I can not give ground to data that can be selectively interpreted to suit a particular personal and biased need to extact some info / result that is difficult to measure directly.

And if memory serves correctly, I thought you were arguing that a proton, not an electron, is sufficient to produce pairs. Should I think that there is a "consensus" that PP can be done by bombarding either atomic electrons or atomic protons?

Bvcrist 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire Review of Particle Physics is freely available at http://pdg.lbl.gov. The relevant figure for the issue of pair production via electrons is 27.14. I had earlier presented 27.17 as evidence that neutrons were not necessary.

Yes, you should think that there is a consensus (without scare quotes) that pair production can be done via electrons, protons or any other charged body. --Strait 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Strait. Please do me another favor. I can not readily find the sub-section that contains the relevant figure 27.14 unless you are referring to the figure in the article you shared earlier. I have not ordered the free copy of the entire book. I believe I have last years somewhere in my messy office, but have not spotted it yet. Thanks for any help. Bvcrist 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can read it on the web. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/contents_sports.html "Passage of particles through matter". --Strait 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Found Figure 27.14. It seems to have been mislabeled as 27.15. The figure called 27.14 shows Photo-Absorption Cross Sections (in barns) vs Photon Energy for both Lead and Carbon. Figure 27.15 (the real Figure 27.14) shows Pair Production Cross Section vs Fractional Electron Energy. This Fractional Electron Energy is due to the accelerated beam not the electrons in the atoms, so the question is: Are you suggesting that x=E/k represents either atomic or free electrons? Or, am I looking at the wrong figure, or is there something - some description - in the text that suggests that gamma-ray photons have interacted atomic electrons exclusively, or are you suggesting that Compton X-ray Scattering is somehow contributing to Pair production?

Bvcrist 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the figure that is labeled 27.14 on page 19. It shows a curve marked κ_e which the caption defines as "pair production, electron field." --Strait 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That "pair production, electron field" curve (ref 47) is actually a curve called "incoherent pair production - Triplet Production" as defined by J.S.Hubbell etal in their original 1980 NIST publication (125 page PDF) which is available free from the NIST site. On p.1036 of that article they mention "free electrons" in the opening sentence of that paragraph, but soon reveal that they are writing about Atomic Electrons which from their point of view act as free electrons. This reveals that the PDG figure is due to calculated estimates of potential cross sections if the Bethe-Heitler or Wheeler-Lamb calculation are reliable. They show charts for H, He, Li, Be, B, C all the way up to Z=100. This set of charts also shows that the Triple Production Curves are calculated from the total Photo-Ionization Cross Section chart you know as 27.14 in the PDG PDF file. Another set of derived set of curves (all elements) for "incoherent pair prodiction - Triple Production" is available from the NIST XCOM database via link: [1]. Do these charts and info confirm or deny my contention?

Bvcrist 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a free electron. All electrons are influenced by external fields. However, at energies above 10MeV, where the curve in question begins, the fact that the electron is bound to its nucleus with a binding energy of tens or hundreds of eV is a negligible effect. They are free in this regime.

I will state once more that the Particle Data Group is highly respected and the Review of Particle Physics is a nearly universal reference to particle physicists. If they stated something questionable about so mundane and generic a topic as whether or not a photon can pair produce in an electron's field, they would be instantly shot down by thousands of dedicated physisicts from around the world. This more than meets the standard for what can appear in an encyclopedia as a verifiable (WP:V) statement. If you want to continue being skeptical, that is your right, but you must agree that things stated as fact in the PDG RPP are eligible to be stated as fact on Wikipedia. --Strait 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey what just happened? Did you just agree, in an indirect manner, that a beam of pure photons can only produce an electron-positron pair in the presence of matter, which is exatly what is shown in the E144 image shown above and is depicted in the Feynman diagrams published by the E144 group? And contradicts your earlier stance that photons can create matter all by themselves?

I too have no doubt that a photon can produce pairs in the presence of a nucleus and there's no need to pay homage to PDG. They are paid to do what they enjoy. They are scientific businessmen because we the government sponsor their work. Despite this, there is absolutely no verifiable evidence that photons by themselves can produce electrons or positrons in the total absence of matter.

There is still no evidence that photons can produce pairs in the presence of a pure electron beam. And no, electrons attached to nuclei are still not free electrons no matter how fast light is. Electrons in atoms are a system and can not be treated separately despite the approximation proposed by Born and Oppenheimer.

As for references being reliable (re Rev Part Phys), try looking up the definition of matter or mass in various dictionaries and Wikipedia and see if you get a consistent set of descriptions. Last time I checked they are human just like us.

What do you mean there is no such thing as a free electron? Are you gonna try to tell that to all the people who use Synchroton beams, mother Sun who shoots billions of free electrons at our poor little planet every day, who watch TV, use electric current, use SEMs, use TEMs, use AESs and keep a straight face? Or are you gonna tell me that free electrons suffer "self-energy" effects as they travel in a straight line?

Surely you agree that there are "bound electrons" and "free electrons", free in the sense the only influence might be gravity waves if they at all affect free electrons in space.. If not, then you should write an article on what constitutes "free electrons".

Bvcrist 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neutrino oscillation

It's pretty clear that the Majorana mechanism would violate conservation of electric charge if it applied to electrically charged particles. I'd expect someone with your background to see that.

In fact, prior to July 9, 2006, the article read: "...Majorana mass (which cannot work for electrically-charged particles since it would allow particles to turn into anti-particles which would violate conservation of electric charge)." --Itinerant1 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. At a closer reading, it does not seem problematic. My concern was mainly based on your edit comment. Do you understand this topic well enough to improve that section further? I don't think that it is written very clearly. Despite the fact that I have passed a QFT class, I don't feel confident enough in my understanding of theory to attempt to reword/expand it. I am an experimentalist after all. :-) --Strait 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sex positions

I only reverted it because there was something important that had gotten taken out in one of the previous edits (I'm not sure if it was yours). --Jaiwills

There's no reason to revert one set of edits because of another unrelated change. --Strait 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Strait, I looked through your bio and see you are well educated. It interests me to see you have diversified from all you studied in school to sexual positioning. It just shows that we ALL have interests in sexual activity.

I just noticed you deleted my wiki update, I did put a link to my website, but you will see that it is relevant to the topic. If you want to delete the external link please go ahead, but please leave up the infrmation that I outlined. I was pointing out the benefits of what the Bonker and Bonkim can do for sexual positioning as well as what other furniture can do to enhance the enjoyment and excitement it can bring to the bedroom. The positioning furniture is incredibly powerful and lends itself to sexual positions no one could EVER get into without its aid. The Bonker and Bonkim are real, pertinent, and beneficial and I the article I wrote was relevant and should also be looked upon as informative.

I thank you for your time and allowing me to discuss. If you wish me to discuss this in another forum or take it to an email, please direct me to the appropriate place.

B

Thanks for the info. I've added a general note about use of furniture in group sex. --Strait 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you!

Hello Strait! We've never interacted before, but I see your contributions all the time because I'm one of the people who watch List of sex positions and other related pages. I can't even count how many times I've had to do vandalism or nonsense reversions of that page. Anyway, you've been doing a wonderful job on that page and others, so it is my honor to award you this barnstar for all your hard work. Feel free to move/copy it onto your user page to show it off, you deserve it. If there's ever anything I can do for you or any questions you might need answered, feel free to stop by and send me a message any time. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And a very well deserved Barnstar it is! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Strait 18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders of magnitude (time)

Hello,

you reverted all my edits in this article. Could you please explain what was wrong with them? Najro 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not reading carefully. I thought that you were changing 1a = 3.16×10⁷s to 3.17×10⁷s. I have reinstated your edits. --Strait 21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing

Thanks for cleaning up Nothing. There are a few, uh, "amateur philosophers" lets call them, that have been adding crap to this article faster than I could remove it. Recury 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference on Automatic

The first time I wrote Automatic I found nothing about Prince's song in Wikipedia so I added the entry. Second, I was interested in reading the lyrics to this song I like so much, that's why I added the reference. So if this happened to me, don't you think other persons and Prince fans would like to have access to this information through Wikipedia? Besides, Disambiguation Pages does not state that a page should not contain a Reference section. JediCarlos 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and other people can click through to the article on the song and get the lyrics from the same link on that page. You are correct that the manual of style does not explicitly state not to put references on disambiguation pages, but it implicitly says so by saying that their sole purpose is to send users to the page that they were looking for. And moreover, look around. No other entries on Automatic have references and other dab pages do not have references. --Strait 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I am not adding the lyrics link anymore. By the way, What do you mean with "back to version that follows the style guide"? I see no problem in writing the album name and the year it was released.

JediCarlos 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The style guide specifies that dab pages should have only enough information on them so that the user can figure out which article he was trying to get to. In the case of Prince's song, the link itself should be sufficient. Retaining the album is already more than is necessary. Moreover, the style guide also says that each line should have exactly one link. You keep adding more. --Strait 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flare

I couldn't comment as to the importance of the dragon, but usually software articles get at least a stub at some point, so your latest edit looks good to me. It is impossible to keep up with all the stupid style, policy and all the rest for me. There needs to be a better system for all that, maybe some sort of message a la "You have new RULES" whenever there is a significant policy change. And a better help index to boot. Thanks for not being an ass! Too many times it gets ugly quick, and I appreciate people who are actually helpful, instead of leaving a cryptic acronym as an alleged explanation. Cheers! Zotel - the Stub Maker 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't really know about the importance of the dragon either, but he/she/it isn't even mentioned on the Dragonlance page, so I thought it was likely to be not very important. --Strait 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I believe that pictures for the sex related articles can be helpful for people who have a hard time with words (such as myself.) I promise the next pictures I upload will be more scientific. --TJ Elliot Scott

[edit] Fisting

ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=92026219&oldid=92023809

Quote from the article: "The number of people who engage in fisting is probably smaller than that of some other sexual practices."

I removed it since it is worded entirely in a subjective style. Just look at it for a second. 'probably smaller'? According to which individual or group's idiosyncratic beliefs and experiences?

If you want to keep the sentence, please rewrite it. I can say that the 'number of people who engage in golden showers is probably smaller than the entire population of India', but what on earth does that establish, or even say? Not much. Nor does the similarly constructed sentence in the fisting article.

Quote from the article: "Fisting is generally considered a low risk activity with respect to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) provided a few basic precautions are followed."

'Generally considered' is downright deceptive. Do you honestly think that a substantial portion of *any* community, city, farm, or whatever is even aware of the term or the practice of fisting? 'Generally considered' needs to be replaced with specific reference to the social groups that *would* be rather familiar with the concept and practice of fisting.

'low risk activity' walks the line of being weasel phrasing. Low risk compared to what? Bus rides? Downtown Washington D.C.? A convent? The phrase is meaningless without specific contextual comparisons to other sexual practices or statistics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.22.101 (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Your comments are reasonable. I will not hinder the sorts of changes you propose. --Strait 08:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everything

Dear Strait, Thanks for the tip! You are a very good man in my book. Can you please point me in the righ direction to find the manual on style for disambiguation pages. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, germanium

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) --Strait 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] leapfrog google test

Honsetly, I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of very little. I indicated that I had been wrong in the google test, and indicated what had gone wrong in google testing it. There is really no need to keep establishing you are right and it doesn't show notability because I agree with you there. I had messed up my google test and did apologize for it. you accuse me of beating a dead google test, but you're beating a dead argument. Please try to keep the discussion a constructive one, and lets wait what other people have to say. It is absolutely no use for two wikipedians to have a go at eachothers arguments for arguments sake. Martijn Hoekstra 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was accusing myself of beating a dead google test in my edit comment. I completely agree with you. --Strait 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

the site i refered to btw was http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/sex_positions.htm#leapfrog , the first non-wiki on the google search leapfrog "sex position".

[edit] doggy style

Thank you for the clean-up to the "see also"/"photo" section for the afformentioned article. I learned something new on how to place a link to material that is still within the wiki foundation. Thank you again for helping learn by example. --CyclePat 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butterfly sex position

Why did you redirect Butterfly sex position to missionary position? They're two totally different things. I have an external link that can attest to that. Unless you intend to massively expand the missionary position (a thing I would not agree with, but I could live with), please move it back. Nina Odell 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it for reasons detailed at Talk:Missionary_position#Merge_.22Butterfly_sex_position.22. Please respond to my points there if you'd like. --Strait 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breast article

Your honest opinions/participation regarding activity on the breast article would be most appreciated. Atom 03:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. This argument appears to be spread over many headings and pages and I am having little sucess understanding what is going on. Is it all about whether or not to have the one image, Breast_shape_type-_lengthwise_growth_and_angled_end.jpg? I would say no, first because it is a low-resolution, low-quality image (I'm not even sure whether it's a photo or a painting) and second because the article has enough images already. If there's a demand for an in-depth discussion of breast size/shape/appearance, seems to me it should be in its own article, not cluttering up breast. --Strait 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use a bit of common sense

I have blocked you for 24 hours for trolling, for this edit. Reinserting a blatant copyright violation after another user has removed it in good faith? Please.--Jimbo Wales 06:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The edit you reference is from almost a month ago and it restores an image with valid copyright status. What on Earth are you talking about? --Strait 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my most sincere apologies. I made a terrible error, looking at the wrong image. Quite separately from your re-inserting that image (which I think is a bad editorial judgment, but nevermind that, it is not my place to decide such things), there was a separate problem on the page of a blatant copyvio. I got confused when working on it, and... well, anyway, I am very sorry about this. In my unblock, I put an apology there too, so that people will know that this was my mistake.--Jimbo Wales 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No hard feelings. --Strait 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... I'm still blocked even though I see the unblock in the log. Bug? --Strait 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 128.101.220.46 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sexuality pages needing attention

I'll respond under your comment: [2] -R. S. Shaw 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generalizing sex positions article

Regarding the reverts you made on List of sex positions - I have made a comment on that subject's talk page. Perhaps we should discuss this a bit. Thanks. --Zuejay 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breasts

Hi - I added the photograph from the Imitation of Christ fashion show by designer Tara Subkoff to the Breast article. The photograph is a perfect illustration of a cultural use of breasts, especially since Imitation of Christ as a fashion line receives a lot of press. Playing with women's sterotypical roles and having them topless seems about as good of an example of breasts being used in a cultural context as I can think. Why do you think not? The red eye is easy to remove. --DavidShankBone 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a standing request on talk:Breast not to add any new images without discussion. You should start a discussion there and let more people than just me decide. (But in any case, removing the red-eye is a good idea.) --Strait 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ejaculation image delete debate

You may be interested in participating in the Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_January_28#Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg discussion. Atom 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiloton, megaton, etc.

Is there an existing discussion of your recent moves involving these and related articles? If not, could you start one with an explanation and summary of what you have done, probably on Talk:TNT equivalent?

I've long felt there were some problems in the way this stuff was organized, so it is probably good you took the initiative. But there are also glitches and likely some people who will disagree with what you have done, and there should be a centralized place for discussing that. Gene Nygaard 14:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't an existing discussion. I've now posted on Talk:TNT equivalent. --Strait 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missionary Position Article

Thanks for the heads-up on clarifying the references. I apologize for it being so late. Isentropiclift 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Isentropiclift