User talk:Bsimmons666/Archive 2

Re: Frost-Nixon
Yep, the article appeared after I requested it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happywaffle (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yearbook of the United Nations
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yearbook of the United Nations, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://unyearbook.un.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article The ABC of Communism, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for African and Malagasy Union
I left a comment on your DYK nomination at Template talk:DYK. Here is the comment: Please respond at the DYK nominations page when you have a moment! Thanks! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]] Length and refs check out, but the hook specifies that member states were former colonies, while no refs specifically say that (although the first ref says that they were all French-speaking states). Can either the hook be tweaked, or another ref added to the article to explicitly clarify what the member states had in common?

DYK for Conviction politics
Congratulations and thank you so much, generous one – keep up the good work, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your DYK submission
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Sorry, I could have sworn I notified you about this a couple days ago, but I must have been mistaken. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 22:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC) &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 22:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion and communism
Hi, I wanted to just suggest that you reword the article, as it makes it seem as if Karl Marx invented communism when it existed in several (mainly religious) forms before the development of Marxism. I know you had said to make any edits if need be, but it's a rather significant edit, so I figure you'd rather do it. Maybe rename the article to "Marxism and religion" as it's focused on Marxist communism rather than non-Marxist variants. Thanks!Homagetocatalonia (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of bands whose members are all deceased
Hello. I noticed that you seem to have taken issue with my AfD nomination of List of bands whose members are all deceased, and I was wondering if you could clarify your position? I'm not sure that I see where you're going with the appeal to WP:WAX.

Thanks. --KurtRaschke (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, if you had actually bothered to read my argument, you would see that my basic argument is "No reason is given as to why this subject is notable" and I was just using those as examples. I never said "delete because we don't have a list of films whose members are all dead". So, I really don't appreciate your unprovoked, unnecessary attack on my arguments. -- Scorpion 0422  17:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Article collaboration proposal at WikiProject Space Colonization
Hi, I've put together a proposal for an article collaboration of the week at WikiProject Space Colonization. I would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know if you're interested in participating. Wronkiew (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hasdrubal I of Carthage
You will notice that the link still points to the Carthaginian Empire article. That seems a fair compromize. For me there are two things. First is the description empire valid for Carthage's wider dependencies. Second, I would argue that the dependencies were dependent on the city - they did now owe allegiance to Hasdrubal personally. The way the current link is set up leaves the question open which probably reflects the lack of certainty about that period.Dejvid (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian sovereignty article
Hi Bsimmons, if I understand correctly from your comments at WT:CANADA and your edit summary, you've created this article by cutting-and-pasting text from other Wikipedia articles? If so, this seems to be a violation of the GFDL license on Wikipedia. If you copy the work of other people, you have to respect the terms they licensed their work under, which is that you give them specific credit. Just saying "combines many other articles" isn't good enough, unless you've definitely reworded and restructured the content. Franamax (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on rewording the article then. Just for future reference - do you know where it states that in the WP:GFDL agreement? Thanks. Bsimmons666  (talk) Friend? 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved here from my page to keep the discussion in one place, corrected WP:GFDL link. Franamax (talk)

I'm not sure I can point you to any one place, so I'll try a list instead: I'm not sure I'm particularly coherent on this, and I'm going to ask someone more knowledgable than I (User:Moonriddengirl) to comment also. She might even say that I'm totally wrong, anyway, that's how I read GFDL. Sorry for the length of post! :) Franamax (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, there's the concept of "authorship" (see WP:COPYRIGHT) that says that we all own our creative contributions here. We license them under GFDL, which specifies that derivative works can be freely created, providing that the prior authorship is noted. (GFDL 1. Definition of "Modified Version" )
 * Next, the question of whether you have made a "creative" contribution. You are not claiming any creative input other than the idea of collecting together other pieces of text into a coherent whole (in fact, you explicitly said that, which is a very good thing), plus I think you've made some changes to the text in order to improve it (again, good). However, this now becomes a GFDL 1. "Modified Version".
 * Now, a little note that WP kind of smears the GFDL "sections" around:
 * Title Page: "new title" being oldid numbers (GFDL 4A) plus the edit history page (GFDL 4B&4C) plus the MediaWiki wrapper (GFDL 4D,4E,4F,4H,4O)
 * History Page being generally (but not always) the edit history page, sometimes also the talk page, sometimes the edit summary (GFDL 4I,4J)
 * Acknowledgements and Dedications Page(s) - that's actually what you did with your edit summary, no problem there, except you weren't specific enough and you fall foul of at least GFDL 4I.
 * Invariant Sections being generally preserved in edit history, but sometimes talk pages (GFDL 4G,4L) and also MediaWiki always shows tabs for history, which identifies the Invariant Sections.
 * Confused yet? Basically, when you copy-paste other people's work, you are creating a "Modified Version" (GFDL 1) and have to preserve all the Invariant Sections (GFDL 4G,4L), which are the "Secondary Sections" (GFDL 1) - i.e. the edit history. In essence, you should create the conditions where every single word can be traced back to the author of that word.

So, if I wanted to credit all the authors, how would it be possible for me to do that? Or is that not possible, and I should just delete the whole thing or rewrite it? Hope all of my questions aren't too obnoxious. Bsimmons666  (talk) Friend? 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to do it is to build up the new article in small bits, each one with an edit summary "copied from (source) " - between the link to (source) and the timing of edits in the various article histories, you exactly comply with "History Page" (no-one says the History has to be easy to read, just that it has to be there:) ). Alternatively, make a talk page post listing your WP article sources, then make a "null edit" (add an extra space somewhere) and use the edit summary "null - source text listed at talk page" or such-like.
 * It would be a shame for you to have to blank all your previous work, if you can just summarize where you got it from, that's fine. Remember, as long as there's a link to follow, you're satisfying Title and History (although it's best to be as clear as possible). As a last resort, you could blank it and rebuild from scratch - and I will help if you wish. :)
 * And no, not obnoxious at all, by any definitions that I know of. It's a complicated area, and I just went to ask someone else questions about it too. We're all here to build the perfect encyclopedia, questions are a constant part of that. Regards! Franamax (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry for taking so long to respond. I am in agreement with Franamax's interpretation of GFDL requirements here (credit is explicitly required for Wikipedians to further modify the text), and since the article is already created also agree with Franamax's suggestion that a null edit with a list at the article's talk page should be perfectly fine. Ordinarily, it would be better to note in edit summary step by step, but as long as you list all of your sources, with direct links to them at the talk page, and note that in edit summary you should be fine. One additional point, though: it's really a good idea to make note at the pages you took the material from as well, to be sure that they aren't later deleted. I would at least make a null edit at the edit summary of the source article, indicating "Material merged to Canadian sovereignty". If you think there's a decent chance the source article could later be deleted, I'd also make a note at the article's talk page. If you've taken material from, say, Canada, you're probably safe. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Last question: which editors (i.e. how many) should I list out? Bsimmons666  (talk) Friend? 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to list individual editors (figuring out who did what would be quite a trick for some articles!). You just need to name the article and give a link to the version you copied from. People can then look at the history for that article. It's not ideal, because they won't know for sure which text you copied (that's why building it up with a series of edits would have worked better).
 * On the CanSov article post on the talk page a section called "Original sources" with a list of entries such as Canadian Monarchy for each of your source articles.
 * Make a null edit to the CanSov article with the edit summary "original article sources listed at talk page".
 * On each source article, make a null edit with the summary "some material was merged to Canadian Sovereignty oldid=259192108"
 * And as MRG says, if it's an article that could get deleted, post at the source article talk page, giving the link where you created the article.
 * That should do it! Franamax (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the helpl. Bsimmons666  (talk) Friend? 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work, thank you. I'm not sure you've got all the details (MRG's point about making null edits in all the source articles [as opposed to talk pages] to make the "official" "History Section" merge notice), but I'll wait a few days then try some cleanup. All that holiday stuff ya know. :) I'm not sure if either of us have expressed it, but thanks much for your good-faith efforts at making quality articles! Some of the rules can seem pretty arcane, but if we all work together, we'll get the job done eventually. Regards, Franamax (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You think the section works better on the talk page then under the reference section? The talk page can be archived. But, obviously, I'm not the expert. And I linked to the revision closest to the time that I wrote the Canadian Sovereignty article, just in case changes have been made. But I've fixed that I think. Bsimmons666  (talk) Friend? 13:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

All Women Shortlists
The statistic on All Women Shortlists which you reverted this morning/yesterday does not really need a source; the composition of the House of Commons (including party affiliations and, I suppose, sex) is readily available. I have, however, added one now.

I would appreciate it if you did not revert such good-faith edits in future without informing the other person you had done so. I don't watch the page in question, and it was only by chance I noticed what you'd done. I hope you realize why the 77% figure, while true, is worthless! &mdash;Wereon (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for All Women Shortlists
--Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review requested
A page (Capture ready) whose AfD discussion you were involved in has been recreated. Please review the new page and see if the original arguments still hold. If so, the page would be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for your opinion on Requests for adminship/Mixwell. I have decided that it's too early for it. I closed it by WP:Snow. Thanks! -- Mix well ! Talk 03:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey-Israel relations
I was refering to the line where it said "more than 700 civilians were killed". If you read the source, the source had said nothing about 700 civilians being killed. Read the source again please next time you revert edits. LOTRrules  Talk   Contribs  14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, There is a link to the BBC article. I'm sure this is true. I'll add it in the next 2 hours. I'm slightly busy at the moment. LOTRrules   Talk   Contribs  23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for making me giggle. I saw your Washington Post quote! Chesdovi (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hampstead, New Kent County, Virginia
Thank you for creating Hampstead, New Kent County, Virginia. Although just a stub, it was a needed article. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Hi BSimmons, Many thanks for your support in my RFA, glad you liked the My Badz. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here.  Were Spiel Chequers  23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elm City Resident Card
Hi BSimmons, I just came across your excellent article on the Elm City Resident Card, and I've created a short stub about municipal ID cards in generalthat you might want to have a look at and help out with. Cool3 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Elm City Resident Card
--Dravecky (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cox and Reece Committees
I realize that the committee came to differing conclusions, but that doesn't mean they were different committees. According to Williams Stubbs committee checklist (1985) and David Canon's Committees in the United States Congress both list the Reece Committee as an extension of the Cox Committee, with no intervening space between. Many select committees often were reestablished every session of Congress. Reece received new marching orders after Congress didn't like the result of Cox's investigation, but for all intents and purposes they were the same committee, with substantially the same investigation. Since the Cox Committee article had much of the same information as the Reece Committee article I merged the two for consistencies sake. It also provides a more concise narrative of the evolution of the issue.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will provide sources to both books I've mentioned. However, none are available on-line so you'd need to find them in a library. I have a copy of Stubbs, and have only reviewed Canon once or twice. In order to simplify and avoid recording literally thousands of committees, Stubbs and Canon both operated under the view that committees with the same charge were counted as one single committee, regardless of the number of times the committee was reestablished.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  01:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you will note in the source you provided, that Reece "made a push for the continuation of [the committee's] work. Also "select" and "special" are interchangeable terms for these types of investigatory committees. Calling them the Cox Committee and Reece Committee looks to be a literary device to distinguish between the two chairmen, since both chairmen had such diverging views. In much the same way, Historians will likely refer to the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce as the Dingell Committee and the Waxman Committee to distinguish between the two distinct approaches of the two chairmen. Yet, the committee is the same. If I can find a source that provides more of a separate of the two, I would recommend making a notation in the main article rather than recreating separate articles.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)



I forgot to include another book. This one is actually where you'll find info on this committee, since it covers 1946 through the present day.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  15:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nelson, Garrison. Committees in the U.S. Congress: 1947-1992.  Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1993.

Requests for adminship/WWEYANKS52
What were you trying to say when you linked to this? I realise it is now struck, but I really don't understand what you were insinuating at all. &mdash; neuro (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Time (magazine)
You were absolutely correct in blocking the editor for anti-semitism for raising the issue of whether Time has a pro-Jewish hiring policy. Thank you. Regards, A former Time staffer MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. Whoever blocked him did the right thing. And I noticed your helpful comment. TIME, like the other newsweeklies, is in a state of tremendous flux, as I'm sure you've noticed, and is changing even as we speak. How it, and the other newsweeklies, look at the other end of this winnowing process will be anyone's guess. I'm told by current staffers (I'm no longer there) that it's a radically different place these days. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy
--Dravecky (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Smyth v. Ames
Shubinator (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Short section on Stand in the Schoolhouse Door
Re this edit: how about moving the single section about the "aftermath" to the end of the lede, and then we can reinstate the Aftermath section is more gets written about it? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stand in the Schoolhouse Door
Shubinator (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination reference question
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect help needed
Could you redirect searches for "First aid blanket" to space blanket, please. I tried to look how to DIY it, but I'm too daft to figure it out. (Lisa4edit)76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Diffs
You mentioned that you would pull diffs of opposes at IRC that didn't make sense. No one responded. I would like to see them. I have meant 100% all of my opposes and I stand by all of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

re: thanks
Since you are the creator behind 1999 Tashkent bombings, I'll ask if you would take a look at 2009 New York City bomb plot and make any improvements you feel are necessary. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

AN/I notification
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Deor (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

NYC Bomb Plot
I dont know how to use talk.

There is no reason to say "Black" or "Muslim" saying "Black Muslim Men" is considered racist to some. Replacing it with simply "Terrorist" is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.62.178 (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Empire of Brazil
Hello!! I´ve done all te chnges you´ve suggested in the article Economy of the Empire of Brazil I hope it´s ok! - --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Military of the Empire of Brazil
Hi! In case (an only if) you are interested, you could take a look at the article Military of the Empire of Brazil that I also asked to be reviewed. Take care! - --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
Glad to be of help and thanks for your reviews. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

select committees
I don't have that copy, and don't have it locally either. Only access I've had is when I've been at the Library of Congress, and I'm not going back to DC anytime soon. I think I can get it interlibrary loan, but it's a reference only book and I'm restricted to using it in the library here. I do have Water Stubbs' book on committees, and can check that for you. I'm out of town this weekend, but I'll let you know what I find out when I get back.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't quite skipped town yet. I just noticed that you're asking about a subcommittee. The committee references I have don't address subcommittees. Subcommittees are creations of individual committees, and very rarely are they established by Senate resolution, as in the case of the Overman Committee. Moreover, early subcommittees were often just referred to as "the judiciary subcommittee", "the finance subcommittee", etc., since standing subcommittees are a relatively new creation.


 * Also, newly established committee charged to investigate something rarely had a formal name, and instead took on the name of the topic they were investigating, unless the investigation were referred to a standing committee (as in the Cox investigation). Nevertheless, the press and historians often referred to them by the name of the committee chair out of simplicity, since any formal name was too long. This is what a Google search led me to this name Subcommittee on the Judiciary, Brewing and Liquor Interests and German and Bolshevik Propaganda. The subcommittee is described as an early forerunner to the House Un-American Activities Committee. Here's the source. It also lists the title and document number for the hearings and committee report. Next time I'm in DC at the Library of Congress, I can look up the report/hearings and get more information.




 * Hope that helps.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)