User talk:Robhd

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Global Positioning System, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Global Positioning System was changed by Robhd (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2007-11-30T07:48:41+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

HUMINT, CI, and technique
I rephrased the CI and HUMINT dilemma in response to your post, which raises a valid concern. To some extent, I glossed over the fact that the same interview may give both positive HUMINT as well as counterintelligence value (avoiding, for now, the distinction between defensive and offensive CI). CI and HUMINT are unusual among things that tend either to be an "INT" (i.e., intelligence collection) or a "SEC" (a protective security technique), because the same interview can give information relevant to both missions. It's a difficult problem, especially when it's stylistically unwise to go too deep in an introduction.

You may or may not have picked it up, but I structured "clandestine HUMINT" and "clandestine HUMINT operational technique" pages so they are both subordinate to CI and general HUMINT. If you have some ideas on better expressing this definitely confusing but also legitimate area of complexity, I'd appreciate them. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Raw Veganism
I just added a reply to your comment on the raw veganism talk page, providing an explanation of why my deletion was warranted.Loki0115 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Clitoris vs. the penis
Hello, Robhd. In this edit, you stated that "The listed citations do not support this assertion." But I reverted you because they do. For the first source, did you overlook that it has a Page 2 and 3? On Page 3, it says: "The tip or glans alone has more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings-more than any other part of the human body. In addition, because of the requirements of pregnancy, women have a greater blood supply to the pelvic area and longer and stronger pelvic muscles. And unlike the penis, which produces a single, explosive orgasm, the clitoris provides the means of having multiple orgasms: several, a dozen, or in some cases, over 100! For these reasons, the clitoris could be considered even more powerful than the penis!"

"More than any other part of the human body" certainly equates to "more than the human penis." And after listing this and other reasons the clitoris differs from the penis, the source goes on to consider the clitoris as more powerful than the human penis.

The second source says "The clitoris is highly sensitive and full of nerve endings. In fact, there are as many nerve endings in the tip of the clitoris as there are in a man's penis."

This is why I'd worded the text using "as much as or more than." Because the first source says that the tip (glans) of the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other part of the human body, while the second source says that the tip has "as many" as the human penis. Really, just leaving it as "more than any other part of the human body" would suffice because that would of course include the penis, but I'm not certain if the glans has more than the human penis or just the same amount as the human penis. I will be looking for better sources for this information, especially ones that tell me definitively if it's "more than" or just "as much as." I understand how you may have overlooked that the first source has a Page 2 and 3, and all I ask of you is that you be more careful when analyzing whether or not a source or sources support the text that it or they are backed to. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)