User talk:Bdushaw/Archive2

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: Dismissal of US Attorneys, dispute over warrantless wiretap program.

This dispute is at the top of the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline narrative. A source to tie together the precoursor to multiple resignations permitting the entry of people who would later implement the Dismissal of attorneys, and the later post election Ashcroft resignation allowing and Gonzales's move to the DOJ to protect Bush.

• "Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program". New York Times. United Stated Government Printing Office. July 10, 2009. Retrieved July 17, 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) See especially pages 24 through 35 of the report for the dispute over the "warrantless wiretap program" (Republished online via the New York Times.)

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Tomography_atlantic.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Tomography_atlantic.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Brett Tolman USA.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Franz N. D. Kurie and nuclear electrons

Hi, Bdushaw! How do you think of the info presented in the Franz N. D. Kurie article re the disproof of the proton-electron composition of the neutron? Some essential quantitative details seem to be missing from there.--5.15.35.108 (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know... There may be a point there - I am guided by discussions that are commonly included in reputable references. Is the Kurie "proof" commonly discussed? That I don't know. (As an aside, may I suggest you register for and use a wikipedia account name? Anonymous IP editors are 2nd tier citizens on wikipedia....fly-by-night operators with a reputation for trouble...) Bdushaw (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that sometimes the commonly regarded reputable references omit essential info re the path of scientific information exchange between important scientists like James Chadwick, Ernest Lawrence, Kurie, etc. This source which mentions a link to a 1932 article by Kurie seems very useful to the purpose of retrieving the info on the Kurie (dis)proof which should be the most convincing of all presented info on the proton - electron structure. Additionally, I've noticed that the James Chadwick article has much useful material re the history of the neutron. (Re registering, it might be an idea but I think it is not the most important thing to do, I'm kinda lazy re this. I think it is not recommendable to discriminate IP editors in favor of registered ones. What trouble could do an honest IP editor?)--5.15.30.250 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be stated in neutron that the proton-electron structure has been disproved by the measurement and theoretical analysis of angles of ejection of protons from nitrogen nucleus.--5.15.30.250 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dimensional inconsistency, 8th grader and your label weasel words

I've just noticed your (inconsistent) edit in the neutron article that has removed aspects for clarity essential to an 8th grader. The present formula for neutron mass is, without explicit statement added, dimensionally inconsistent. I've also noticed that Masses can't be added with energy, they have not the same dimension, an aspect that other (IP) users have missed.

Please stop opposing to clarifying statements with problematic labels like weasel words.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Discovery of the neutron

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Discovery of the neutron requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://amedleyofpotpourri.blogspot.com/2015/02/neutron.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jbh (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NONENG sources

Hello, Bdushaw! I've noticed your last edit(reversion) at neutron magnetic moment of noneng sources added to the articles for further citation which makes me asking if you are familiarized with WP:NONENG? If so, please revert your reversion.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

From your further comments I see that you were not aware of this policy mentioned here. You should not get irritated so easily and try to address the content issues instead of purely dismissing them on emotional reasons.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)