User talk:Jerryseinfeld/Archive 2004

Congratulations for starting the Most recent common ancestor page
In my opinion, the Most recent common ancestor page is a gem. Contratulations! And thanks! ---Rednblu 18:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PPP
Hi! When linking to PPP' in relation to GDP, please do it like this: PPP. That way, people will be sent directly to the appropriate page, instead of having to select purchasing power parity from the rather overloaded PPP disambiguation page. Thanks! &mdash; David Remahl 22:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kidney
Jerry, I find the see also links in Kidney not very helpful. This section should refer to truly related articles, while the overlap in scope between Na/K ATPase or norepinephrise and the kidney article is too small to qualify these articles for inclusion. JFW | T@lk  21:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your message on my talk page. JFW | T@lk  06:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Glycemic index
Hi Jerry, I moved glycemic index and glycemic load because this is Wikipedia naming policy (see the first item on that page). These terms are not names, and therefore should not be capitalised. I do this all the time, and I have certainly not singled your work out for special treatment. On the same day I also moved Edward's syndrome.

I find your reaction somewhat aggressive ("Give this guy some patients"). At the bottom of the edit window you'll see that "if you don't want your contributions edited mercilessly, don't post them". I happen to have a lot more Wikipedia experience than you, and all my edits are in good faith and with the best of intentions. Please restrain yourself. JFW | T@lk  07:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, you've been making good edits so far in the finance area. But please use the edit summary box to tell other editors what change you have made and even why sometimes. That is very important to help others know what is going on. Otherwise, to verify edits, I have to sift through a lot of diffs. - Taxman 13:13, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Again, please use edit summaries You seem to make good edits, but not using edit summaries causes a lot of extra work for other editors. Just note what you have changed. Please see Policies_and_guidelines. Thank you - Taxman 19:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just press the button that say "diff" or "last". - Jerryseinfeld 19:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Phewee. Dale Carnegie.  Also, all your edits are flagged as Minor.  Please don't flag anything other than a minor change (i.e. formatting or a spelling error) as minor.  Paul Beardsell 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, sorry. - Jerryseinfeld 21:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Such a good point that it required a minor reply? Paul Beardsell 21:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Where is that control panel... - Jerryseinfeld 21:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Pressing diff's for edits that don't need it is wasting effort. Multiply that effort over everyone else that checks them and it is probably quite a bit. All that effort could go into checking other edits that need it more. More simply, it is just polite to use edit summaries. Refusing to follow a simple policy when asked nicely, twice, is a bit rude. - Taxman 06:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Europe
Hi, I noticed you'd made an edit to this new article, so was wondering if you would add your support to it's nomination for Collaboration of the Week. Simply add your support here. Obviously such a big project needs as many users with relevant knowledge as possible, so hopefully this will promote it a little. Thanks, Grunners 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Celebrity usernames
Recently, someone established the account User:Hilary Duff. Unlike your use of a celebrity name, however, this person claimed to be the Hilary Duff. In the ensuing fracas, some people argued that celebrity usernames shouldn't be allowed. I don't agree. I've started a thread on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Username. Your comments would be welcome. JamesMLane 20:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Commercial site in Mathematics external links
I have responded to your comment on the Talk:Mathematics page by explaining why I removed this particular link.Gandalf61 09:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)  13:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Larry Ellison

 * Heh, yes the Larry Ellison picture is not so flattering... but at least it adds some humor to the article!
 * I wouldn't want to see myself eating, less Larry Ellison. - Jerryseinfeld 03:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abbey plc
Hmmm. Not sure that moving the article to Abbey National plc is the correct thing to do. There was a big hoo-ha about this sort of thing a couple of months ago, when I started moving company articles to the formal company name – such as moving AstraZeneca to AstraZeneca plc. I got beat up about this, by people who said that the article should be under the 'familiar' name, which in the case of Abbey National plc is 'Abbey'. Look at Talk:AstraZeneca for the start of the discussion, and follow it to the Naming conventions page. I would back your move, because I thing the policy is ill-conceived and not backed up by facts, but strictly speaking you are going against policy.
 * I have moved the article on Abbey back to Abbey (bank) because Abbey plc is a residential property development company, as your Yahoo! link tells us. Abbey (the bank) is still registered as Abbey National plc ... presumably because Abbey plc was already taken.  Noisy | Talk 18:59, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoops. - Jerryseinfeld 21:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you do decide to stick with your changes, then you will also need to fix all the links on 'What links here' to avoid redirects. Noisy | Talk 22:24, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Possible page merger
I made a suggestion at Talk:Economy_of_North_America, please add your comments there so as to keep the debate in one place. Cheers. Grunners 01:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hyundai Group =/= Hyundai

 * Hyundai Group =/= Hyundai
 * What? The Hyundai Group is not the same as Hyundai? Is that what you're trying to say? - Jerryseinfeld 19:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Government ownership

 * Jerryseinfeld, moving a page from the most common term (public ownership) to one you think appropriate (government ownership), against disagreement by others (see Talk:public ownership, which for some reason you didn't move) is very rude. You also managed to garble the perfectly adequate intro, and add vague, confusing and POV stuff. I'm on the verge of conidering this a dispute - please explain yourself. Rd232 11:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I did explain myself in the talk page. You can probably move it to public ownership if you want to, it could be either one. - Jerryseinfeld 17:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This also seems inconsistent with Jerry's redirecting of sovereign bond and government debt to public debt. What's going on?  Paul Beardsell 12:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Public debt isn't government debt? Now come on. - Jerryseinfeld 17:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I said nothing of the kind. I remarked that you were being inconsistent in your renaming of articles.  But, as it happens, I do NOT think that public debt and government debt are entirely the same.  Two different flavours are given with the two different terms.  There is a certain political positioning happening when one refers to govt debt as public debt.  But my main objection is that government debt is unambiguous,  whereas "public debt" requires one to be aware of and accept the use of public in that sense - there is an ambiguity:  "Public" debt could be misunderstood as, say, the aggregated credit card debts of the individuals forming the public.  You have been introducing ambiguity and inconsistency.  Without always the PRIOR consultation which would avoid you annoying people.  Paul Beardsell 20:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, that's why I moved it to government debt. - Jerryseinfeld 20:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Which I tried to move back (but can't), because "public debt" beats "government debt" 2:1 in Google and rather more in conventional usage, and Wikipedia convention is to use the most common term. As for Paul Beardsell's argument - the correct term would be consumer debt. If there is any serious risk of confusion then the public debt page can include a For debts owed by individuals, see consumer debt at the top. Rd232 12:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said: they would be mistaken to use "public debt" like that in my example but the mistake is likely to be made. I disagree about conventional usage. I think most people would say "hey, what?" to "public debt" whereas "government debt" would be instantly understood. The Google statistic you quote I find unimpressive: There are twice as many pages returned for public than for government. So twice as many pages for "public debt" (note the quotes) as for "government debt" says little or nothing. The Wikipedia conventions say a little more than you let on:  ambiguity is to be avoided and understandability is to be promoted. Paul Beardsell 14:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The place to be having this discussion is on the article's talk page, not here. And there, at least, I can object should anybody have the audacity to put bullets before each of my paragraphs. I am copying to there. Please continue, if at all, at Talk:Government debt. Paul Beardsell 14:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of billionaires
Glad to see your interest in List of billionaires, I've left a message on the talk page to see if anyone was interested in helping create an article for everyone on the list. Are you interested? Arminius 00:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a great initative. If anyone should have their own page it's the billionaires. - Jerryseinfeld 10:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I suggest we do it in groups of five. This may mean its not completed right away but allot will get done. I'm also still looking for others to help. Here is the people I'm going to do (already started on some) Talk:List_of_billionaires. Pick 5 different people, and when your done tell me. I think I can be done with mine by the end of the day. thanks allot for your help :) Arminius 19:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi -- I've just copyvio'd two of your new articles: Wolfgang Herz and James Goodnight. Then I noticed that, since you added both, it would be silly to copyvio the rest -- I'd just mention this on your talk page. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect copying the short blurbs from Fortune, while the information is a useful start, is probably a copyright violation. I'd recommend rewriting the blurbs before adding them. best, jdb 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably.--Jerryseinfeld 06:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User name
Hi. Has anyone talked to you about your username, and potential policy issues with it? -==SV 04:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the username might conflict with policy, but (assuming that it's not your real name) it's annoying and does feel inappropriate. Wouldn't you feel odd having Wikipedia discussions with a user called Mickeymouse? Rd232 09:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In an earlier post on this page, I noted the beginning of a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username. For my part, I don't find this username annoying.  People who have a concern, though, are welcome to join that discussion.  JamesMLane 18:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ownership society
Great improvement, thanks! --Lumidek 00:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Ownership society; the article may be a copyright violation.CSTAR 03:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bill
Could you fix up what you added to the intro at Bill Gates? I think I know what it means, but I'm not sure exactly. Everyking 00:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What? - Jerryseinfeld 00:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You moved it to "estimated wealth". Everyking 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forbes world's richest people
Your recent new articles are taken word for word from the descriptions on Forbes' world's richest people list. This is a copyright violation. Please do not post material from other sources without permission. Gamaliel 06:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice job Gamaliel. So you can't say for example "Mohammed Jameel runs the world's largest Toyota dealership, with operations in the Middle East, United Kingdom, Central Asia and China."? It's one sentence.--Jerryseinfeld 06:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's the principle of the thing. If it's just one sentence, it should be easy enough to write your own. I'm going to restore the copyvio notices you removed. You can argue your case on the copyvio page. If you restore copyright material and remove the notices again you will be blocked. Gamaliel 06:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You can argue it in the copyvio page.--Jerryseinfeld 07:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to continue to make original contributions when your block expires. Gamaliel 07:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The Wall Street Fix"
The link you added at Wall Street seems only tangentially related to the topic. It's about stock markets. "Wall Street" is used in the title only as a metonym. It seems worth a link, but from a different article. Rather than just delete it, I wanted to give you a chance to move it somewhere appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:31, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's about the 2002 "wall street scandal" and the global settlement with Wall Street firms, located and headquarterd on Wall Street.--Jerryseinfeld 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inflation
If you are going to add links to articles, the caption should be either be neutral or directly quoting the article. 172 07:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some nonsensical paranoid POV articles. That will satisfy the most nonsensical critic.--Jerryseinfeld 12:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)