User talk:Fcoulter

=2010=

''Insert new items here. If you are adding a comment to an older item, move the entire item here, too.''

About You Can't Take It With You
Hi there. It's perfectly OK to add the revival info to the article, just not in the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main article. So... Cheers. --Artoasis (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

=2008=

GASB articles
I'm always glad to see someone else editing accounting-related articles here; it's a neglected subject, and even the basic concepts are not covered adequately here. I do have one question for you: are the GASB statement summaries copyrighted? I am guessing they are copyrighted, so it's probably not OK to copy them into Wikipedia articles. It's great stuff to cover, but I think we should write the articles ourselves. Thanks. Rhobite 03:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I reinstated the original version of the article on ESC, as I felt your objections to the modifications had merit. The lists I agree with you professor are an essential integral part of the description. AdirondackMan (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I took your advice, however tonight I removed Dr. Elliot from the list as Interim President and left Dr. Alan Davis listed, with the notation he is President on August 1. AdirondackMan (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

=2005=

Auditing Link
Re: Auditing link in Accountancy - no problem Berek 09:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accounting reform
My mistake; I'll fix it. But do you have any thoughts on a good subcategory? The economics main category has hundreds of articles. I'm trying to put most of them in subcategories, but I don't know that much about the subject. Thanks. Maurreen 04:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will try macroeconomics. Maurreen 04:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merchant Marine Act of 1920 - Reference requested
U.S. Senate Website U.S. Senator John McCain Arizona

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT June 25, 2010

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6f6b73f4-a9f3-8433-0472-f3bd97d2fa86&Region_id=&Issue_id=

“Today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

“This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact – maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

“The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers – particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ‘Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.’”

“This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 21st, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ‘it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.’ However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

“The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel – just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina – to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

“Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.”

Reference: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6f6b73f4-a9f3-8433-0472-f3bd97d2fa86&Region_id=&Issue_id=

View Bill

Reference: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=244846c7-d436-4704-87fb-ccff411ebae7

EAS10264 S.L.C. 111TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. ll To repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise trade and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES llllllllll Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on llllllllll A BILL To repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise trade and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open America’s 5 Waters Act’’. 6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF JONES ACT LIMITATIONS ON COAST7 WISE TRADE. 8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12112(a) of title 46, 9 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 2 EAS10264 S.L.C. 1 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A coastwise endorsement may be 2 issued for a vessel that qualifies under the laws of the 3 United States to engage in the coastwise trade.’’. 4 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the 5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commandant of 6 the United States Coast Guard shall issue regulations to 7 implement the amendment made by subsection (a). Such 8 regulations shall require that a vessel permitted to en9 gaged in the coastwise trade meets all appropriate safety 10 and security requirements. 11 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 12 (1) TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION STAND13 ARDS.—Section 3703a(c)(1)(C) of title 46, United 14 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Coast Guard 15 and is qualified for documentation as a wrecked ves16 sel under section 12112 of this title.’’ and inserting 17 ‘‘Coast Guard.’’. 18 (2) LIQUIFIED GAS TANKERS.—Section 12120 19 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by strik20 ing ‘‘United States,’’ and all that follows and insert21 ing ‘‘United States.’’. 22 (3) SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS.—Section 23 12121(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amend24 ed by striking ‘‘12112,’’. 3 EAS10264 S.L.C. 1 (4) LOSS OF COASTWISE TRADE PRIVILEGES.— 2 Section 12132 of title 46, United States Code, is re3 pealed. 4 (5) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections 5 for chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, is 6 amended by striking the item relating to section 7 12132.

--Seablade (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.67.249 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Among Others
Oops. Did that wrong; my mistake. DS (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591066150 your edit] to Professional certification may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * *GFO [Government Finance Officer] conferred by [[http://www.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)