User talk:Bdushaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Bdushaw, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to say it's been a pleasure to have a colaborator. It looks like both of us are busy on other obligations for a while. Best regards, -- Yellowdesk 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, its been an education; thanks for the compliment; I've been amazed by your industriousness with the project. The currents of life are taking me away from my best intentions, e.g. the sandbox. And they deleted my article on OpenPsion which was rather discouraging (see archives above, though nothing important there); I spent my wikipedia capital this past week on it. I am also to be on travel for the next few weeks, by then Gonzales will have...well never mind. I might add a section on the consequences of the controversy this week - hard to find replacements, DOJ morale, and defense attorneys across the land using the issue. We'll see... Cheers, Bdushaw 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Waybackmachine3.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Waybackmachine3.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globoidally vs. ellipsoidally delineated geodesic?

Hiya Bdushaw!
I saw your comment about geodesy being too math-tech——I think the problem (like with a lot of the math type articles) is that it is too abstract-theory technical. Regarding your globoidal (i.e., spherical) vs. ellipsoidal geodesic paths, do you know if there is an established name for the elliptic valued, but globoidally delineated geodetic distance? I don't mean the formula (I know that....It's actually simpler than the true geodetic one! P=), just what it is called: I call it the "parageodesic", since it is related to, and closely follows (except when approaching antipodal lengths), the true geodesic (actually it is the compilation of infinitesimal geodesics along the globoidally delineated path).  ~Kaimbridge~21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is too abstract-theory oriented - I think a down-to-earth (no pun intended) description and the differential geometry description can co-exist, but the article needs to be framed so that the technical stuff doesn't overwhelm the article. As for your question...I've read it twice and think I know what you are asking (sort of), but I have no answer; I am not fluent in such issues, alas. The book by Bomford seems to be the one that people go to for geodesic answers. Bdushaw 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Siegelman

I would be interested in knowing how Don Siegelman's prosocution relates to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.
It is not particularly obvious to me, and I suspect less obvious to an innocent reader unfamiliar with the controversy.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Yellowdesk! Happy Prosperous New Year! I put the link in, remembering the issue like this: Siegelman was a politician who was politically neutralized in connection with an election and jailed by U.S. Attorneys who had aggressively pursued him at the direction of Karl Rove. So it seemed to me that it supported the notion of U.S. Attorneys, elections, and the use of U.S. Attorneys in politically-motivated prosecutions, along the lines of Bradley Schlozman. I think, however, this view may have originated from a sequence of "facts" or "spin" from a N.Y. Times editorial. Certainly, the Don Siegelman article is less than conclusive about that (although I find that article a little muddled from what I know of the issue, but never mind). Fairly immediately after I added the link, I came to doubt my certainty about the issue. And having looked at Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Prosecution_of_Don_Siegelman sub-page I find that that discussion wanders a bit from what the Dismissal page is about. Although the evidence seems to suggest that Siegelman was singled out fairly aggressively by the U.S.A.'s, and suffered an overly-severe penalty compared to other comparable cases, I am less convinced about its relations to the USA's controversy. That situation seems to characterize much of the USA controversy - things look and smell really bad, but no really strong case can be made. I wouldn't object to removing the Siegelman link and/or reducing the Siegelman discussion to the basic, yet strange/suspicious role that U.S. Attorneys in Alabama seemed to have played. Bdushaw (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In a way, I suppose one answer is that the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is one part, the largest part, of the whole issue of the way the administration has politicized the DoJ. What do Monica Goodling's hiring practices have to do with the fired attorneys? One can imagine (imagine, mind you) reorganizing the Dismissal article around that theme, and having separate articles on the dismissals, the odd prosecutions, hiring practices, and other elements of how the DoJ has been broadly politicized. One of the first things the present AG did was limit DoJ contact with the Whitehouse, to restore the insulation the DoJ enforced before. So Don Siegelman may be viewed as an example of how the Dismissals article drifts from the dismissed attorneys to the broader issue of the politicization of the DoJ. Bdushaw (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] licensing for screenshots of blogs?

Hi there and thanks for the note - to be honest I don't know what the answer is to this one - as it's not something I have come across - the best I can do is suggest that you re-post the query at Wikipedia:Village pump and see if a boff there knows the answer - kind regards Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An invitation

An invitation, to turn on email for your wikipedia account. No explanation needed, I hope. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be on now; I had forgotten to enter my e-mail address. (If I start getting too much junk mail, I'll turn it off again, however) Bdushaw (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)