User talk:Zaphraud/2010

Carly Fiorina

While I'm personally not a fan of her politics, your commentary at the talk page was highly inappropriate given you made unfounded accusations of criminal acts. Please read WP:BLP to understand exactly what was wrong with that, and note that BLP policy does not just apply to mainspace - Alison ^❤ 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded? Don't you ever read the news? LOL, you are way the hell off here. Zaphraud (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to make assertions of illegal or illicit activities on the talk page of a biography of a living person is quite specifically a violation of our policy on the matter. Expanding that to allege that other editors are being paid to "whitewash" the article is unacceptable under another of our policies. You obviously have strong feelings about Carly Fiorina, but you're currently channeling those opinions in a manner that is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. If you have suggestions for improving the article, they're welcome. Trying to use the talk page as a forum to attack the person or repeatedly express your viewpoint is, however, not welcome. jæs (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice try, but you removed sourced material this time, so none of what you are saying is relevant; furthermore, the material I contributed is quite relevant to an article about someone who has deliberately put themselves into the public light to be judged by well-informed voters; Wikipedia is full of examples of similar, sourced information about politicians. Tell you what - you reword it how you like without altering what is known, and put it on her MAIN PAGE. Then I'll delete my version on the talk page, for the purpose of at least letting someone more sympathetic to her politics have a chance at explaining her actions, rather than simply suppressing all knowledge of them. Zaphraud (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the source you indicated is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and you're continuing to drown out any legitimate point you may have with irrelevant allegations and soapbox opinions. You need to do better than that. jæs (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of an image in fluid dynamics

I feel your restoration of the image of cannabis manufacturing to show the interaction of compressible flows and incompressible flows is inappropriate because the meaning of compressible flows as described in the section "Compressible vs incompressible flow" is different. In fluid dynamics by compressible flows we mean flow with a Mach number greater than about 0.3. Salih (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, compressibility of gas is of great concern when that gas is being drawn through a liquid; the weight of the liquid (rather than the effects of speed) act to compress the gas; as the bubbles travel upward, they expand. Again, I assert that this is of importance at least in the petroleum industry (as well as several other industries, I would assume) and I desire that someone replace the image with an image that demonstrates this principle visually rather than simply erasing it.Zaphraud (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Alternatives to toilet paper has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the spotted owl is a well known alternative to toilet paper. Consider NO TOILET PAPER, WIPE YOUR ASS WITH A SPOTTED OWL. from audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0901-webExclusives.html Zaphraud (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and Alexia without agraphia

Hi Zaphraud Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and Alexia without Agraphia, are realted issues which can be causes by the same original medical problems, in that stroke and serious medical issues can cause these neurological information processing issues. Which tend to be included in the wider aphasia spectrum. My interest lies in having the same problems but due a genetic developmental cause, as opposed to being acquired as a result of a severe illness. You may find a couple of my PubMed research paper collections may provide more information regarding both Alexia and Alexia without Agraphia. Unfortunately my time is mainly devoted to understanding developmental dyslexia, and more specifically the cause of my developmental dyslexia Auditory Processing Disorder. which also has an acquired version included as part of aphasia.

best wishes dolfrog (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply sorry for the delay

...but now I have updated what you have asked once.... Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians with large cocks

Category:Wikipedians with large cocks, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]