Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 3

message: Is he richer than Donald Trump or is Donald richer than him?? RealG187 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gates is considerably wealthier, by just about any measure.  Trump was 94th on the last forbes list at 2.9billion.  Gates was first, with 53billion. Kuru talk 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump 

message: I personally think the picture doesn't show what Bill Gates accually looks like, I will be replacing it as soon as I find one that will work.
Tack 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about here? Acdx 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture does need replacing but I think the pictures you are referencing require permission to use.Pasado 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we obtain permission to use it?  Or can we find a better picture to replace it with? --Nevhood 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really agree about changing the picture. I will see what happens if I contact Microsoft about the image permissions. --ProphetessT 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, Microsoft actually wrote me back in the same day :-P!  It kind of had an automated feel, and all it really did was point me to  this link.  Not sure how that information applies to Wikipedia... --ProphetessT 01:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says on that page "If you want to use photographs of Bill Gates for 'reporting purposes, contact the photographer who created the work, or contact Waggener Edstrom at (425) 637-9097. No other use is permitted.". Although its not for reporting - it is for an encyclopedia, So I guess someone needs to contact the photographer. — Wackymacs 08:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Picture

message: Sweet Jesus.  Does anyone in Wikipedia understand basic English grammar and punctuation?  Why are so many of these articles crammed with misplaced modifiers, dangling participles, and subject-verb disagreements?  I cannot believe how poorly written these articles are.  Facts will make no impression if they are presented via terrible English.  The Gates article needs a vast amout of simple, straightforward, copy-editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.25.120 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Accurizer 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Manners

message: Just some notes on how I want to reorganize this to focus on Gates rather than random details about Microsoft. This should be easier now that we know how the story will end.
Entrepreneur, 1975-1986
:Microsoft prior to the IPO, Gates as software developer, bringing in Ballmer and Jon Shirley, origin of MS-DOS
Chief executive officer, 1986-1998
:IPO, no longer programming, management style, breakdown of the IBM relationship, antitrust
Departure, 1998-present
:Antitrust cont'd, Chand becomes president then CEO, Gates becomes CSA, announces departure, remains as chairman.
Gazpacho 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me - the Microsoft nitty-gritty should be left for the Microsoft article, as you suggest. Stu 13:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently I'm not going to get around to this. Sorry for mentioning it. Gazpacho 07:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes for rewriting the "Microsoft" section

message: To all editors who have been reverting this user's ridiculous edits, thanks, and it has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. 
--Renesis13 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content itself is not necessarily what I meant was ridiculous -- it was combined with the fact that it had nothing to do with Gates' specifically, it was being reinserted immediately after removal (7 times), and also the edits to Gates' photo's caption to make him sound like a criminal ("before his founding company was declared an illegal monopoly in the United States."). Anyway, the user has been blocked now, so we don't have to keep reverting the page over and over again. -- Renesis13 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THEREALVIEW 

message: Anyone think, with the recent vandalism, that this article needs protection? - A Shade Of Gray 09:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection

message: I think Bill Gates studied pre-law at Harvard, not computer science. He enrolled as pre-law.
:Regardless of whether that is true, "pre-law" is not a degree. It is a program of courses you take in addition to your degree studies to prepare for law school. Gazpacho 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Law

message: When was Gates arrested? April '75, September '75, or December '77? Somebody changed it, and I don't know what's right. Google is no help at all; different dates are all over the place. In the picture there's a number that could be the arrest date: 12 13 77. But I don't know if that's supposed to be a date or not. We should have some definitive source for this........ Everyking 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the disposition of this arrest?  Was he convicted or acquitted?  We shouldn't leave it hanging there because that implies that he was guilty. –Shoaler (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I think the most important thing is to ensure that we have the right date in there, because inaccuracy is worse than omission. Everyking 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Two links
http://www.distant.ca/UselessFacts/fact.asp?ID=220
http://weirdpicturearchive.com/pics/mug-gates.html
which both say 29 april 1975 for speeding and driving without a license. yanneman 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrest

message: This article was nominated for deletion by User:MasterEagle. I decided to ignore some rules and speedy keep it, anyone who disagrees feel free to revert. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination

message: The topic of Gates' religion, athiest/agnostic should be mentioned in the "personal life" section; with references to the interviews that refer to it. Lukeewing 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Gates' Religion (or the lack of)

message: I release most of these statements are referenced in other articles, but at FAC time it is likely people will object due to the (lack of) inline citations there. Best to take care of it before then... RN 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft references, or lack thereof 

message: #Is"This is a police mug shot of Bill Gates." and "This picture is Public Record." a valid source for the image?
#It says it is a public domain mugshot, but as per previous discussion here  and now on commons, mugshots are not public domain in every state... anyone know about New Mexico?
#The text for the mugshot appears to be taken verbatim from 
#Also, is an arrest record a valid source?
RN 07:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mugshot inquries 

message: #Copyright concerns. Apparently this is an ongoing concern with this user (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Futureobservatory) that as far as I can tell has not been resolved.
#Factual/technical errors:
##There is no such thing as a "mainframe language"
##Microsoft did not "port" languages from mainframes, which would mean working on the mainframe implementation's code
##Microsoft did not develop software for minicomputers
#Personal speculation ("it is reasonable to imagine" "as I would have done", "maybe that is why Microsoft seemed to want to forget about it")
#Compounding the longstanding problem of discussing Microsoft in general, not Gates personally
#All this "luck" talk... Why is it Gates's "luck" that DR marketed CP/M-86 badly, and not Gates's credit that he marketed DOS well?
#The history of Windows and how other GUIs inspired it overlooks the significant influence of one particular computer system.
It's not that all of the writing is bad or poorly researched. It just isn't written and researched with Wikipedia's content policies in mind, and makes some major blunders. I'll see if I can pull in some of the info, if not the wording. Gazpacho 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I reverted [[User:Futureobservatory]]

message: .....i am just making all of this up so do not beleive me when i say this be cause Bill Gates did hit the 100-billion mark about 3 months ago lol...I have removed the reference to centibillionaire in this article for two reasons.  First, there is some doubt that Gates ever reached 100-billion USD.  Forbes does not report it and they have been reporting Gates's wealth for many years.  But the principal reason is that "centibillionaire" is not a notable term.  Looking it up on Google only found a few dozen hits -- almost zero in today's world.  Some media have used the term but it has not caught on, primarily because it runs completely counter to the use of "centi" in the SI "metric" system and therefore makes it confusing when we talk about centimetres (is that 100 metres?). If you have a different opinion (or support mine), please add to the discussion below.  Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim and wording appears to come from this article. Gazpacho 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The only reason Forbes doesn't report Gates being a centibillionaire is because they only take a snapshot of wealth at the same time every year.  Gates was only a centibillionaire very briefly, & unfortunately his status didn't last long enough to be documented by Forbes annual list.  And the only reason centibillionaire's not an established term is because he was the only one and it didn't last.  That makes it more notable, not less. And centimillionaire is quite established, so centibillionaire is valid by extrapolation. Timelist 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are right about the centibillionaire. It should be "hectobillionaire" (but that doesnt have the same ring to it).Hongy r 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: centibillionaire is a mistake and it should be noted that the correct term is hectobillionaire (along side of the fact that they media has called Gates a centibillionaire). 71.7.199.51 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Centibillionaire

message: I feel a major omission is the extent to which, in the early days, Bill Gates was given his products by and IBM Independent Business Unit desperate to get its PC off the ground. Thus it seems clear that IBM organised the sourcing of, and financing of, Gates' acquisition of MS DOS. Later, when IBM should have set out to compete with Microsoft, the fact that its then CEO was on the board of a charity with Gates' mother meant that IBM PC staff were banned from competing aggressively.
Futureobservatory 09:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM's Gifts to Bill Gates

message: Hey, I'm not sure, but I heard that he was Jewish (and on another account, Methodist), however, I was wondering what source says he's agnostic. Also... When did he become part of an Order? I may have skipped that, but please state sources. Just interested. IronCrow 01:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnostic? Knights Order? 

message: As has been pointed out, the reference link provided for Bill's salary has gone the 404 route. Can anybody find a newer link? Luna Santin 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary in infobox 

message: A whole page of vandalism and reverts within 24 hours. I removed my remark from the warning comment in case it's contributing to the problem, but it might be necessary to go back to sprotect if this keeps up. Gazpacho 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole article should be just locked, as the vandalism will obviously never stop.--MajinBejitto 01:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've semi-protected the article, the recent spate of vandalism has grown tiresome. Gwernol 01:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism detected at the end of "External links", the following line: "lukyk9.hired to snuff jonbenet by Gates at Stone boatyard alameda cal.because she was b-mailing him over fondeling and inappropriate touching." --MajinBejitto 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sigh... I'd hoped that the article could survive without protection (it was un-protected like 10 days ago after being protected for weeks), but it looks like we've got little choice except to wait for better tools from Wikimedia...  -/- Warren 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals are restless

message: While I know 'sir' shouldn't be added to the front of his name (as he is American and not British, Canadian, New Zealander etc), shouldn't KBE added to the end? (With reference to is 2005 OBE) 
* i.e. William Henry Gates III, KBE (born October 28 1955 in Seattle, Washington) is the co-founder... --HTait 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This had been discussed ad nauseum.  Gates doesn't use the KBE in his name, so we don't.  But read all the discussion in the archive. –Shoaler (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your reasoning is flawed; the fact of the matter is that he holds the title and thus it should be noted in the encyclopedia that he holds the title regardless of whether he personally uses the title or that it is a honourary title. Such a decision conforms with the informative purpose of an encyclopedia. More to the argument: in accordance to your reasoning William Henry Gates III should simply be William Henry Gates as I doubt that he includes the 'III' in the regular usage of his name il magnifico 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says, in the appropriate section, that Gates has received an honorary knighthood. Informing people of the knighthood is not an issue. Your doubt is wrong, as he uses the III suffix where necessary (securities filings, for example) but does not use KBE. Gazpacho 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the appropriate section? at the bottom of the page is the appropriate section? For formality and completion's sake (assuming that a Wikipedian article should be a somewhat formal and complete document), the KBE belongs behind his name. Period. That is part of the honour. Quite frankly, he should have declined the honour if it is the case that he does not use it. It is disrespectful to the honour. This shall be my last contribution to the matter. il magnifico 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: British subjects, when receiving such honors, automatically become recognized to have these titles bestowed upon them.  However, Bill Gates is an American, and quite frankly, I don't know if such titles are officially recognized in the USA.  You have to look at it from an American perspective Alexos.  I'm sure on British documents, there'd be no problem including the title, but in the USA it would not be recognized as part of his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.236.86 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bono recently holds the KBE honor but he's not British, he's Irish. The title KBE goes after his name, so I believe it should be added beside Bill Gates' name.--Sli723 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been on his page less than half a day.  Maybe we should wait and see if it's appropriate there before copying that style.  Besides, the fact that it appears in the Bono article is no refutation of the previous arguments that it shouldn't appear here. Phiwum 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gate's 05 Knighthood 

message: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/19/2252229
Scott Adams recommends a clever atheist leader, namely one Bill Gates for America. God help us then! 195.70.32.136 11:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an official site now - billgatesforpresident.net - which has gotten some noteworthy press coverage in the past day.  Perhaps something should be mentioned in the article if this movement grows... Esn 07:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the billgatesforpresident.net website is serious and is moving forward. Maybe time to add something about this movement in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.223.119 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arnie  (<- <- <- <- <- ) Bill Gates for President! 

message: Would someone please add why the IBM BIOS cloning ~ reverse engineering was allowed while no cloning ~ reverse engineering of MS-DOS took place?  MS DOS was marketed aggressively to the manufacturers of IBM-PC clones.
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC it states that IBM published the ROM BIOS source code:
IBM decided on an open architecture so that other manufacturers could produce and sell peripheral components and compatible software. The ROM BIOS source code was published. IBM did not anticipate that its competitors would find ways to legally duplicate the entire system.
How did others find ways to legally duplicate the entire system according to IBM legal department?
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_20th_century_in_review the above is contradicted, IBM BIOS was not open:
IBM made all specifications for their computer open rather than proprietary, with the exception of their BIOS. As the only impediment to an open system with interchangeable suppliers was this BIOS, it was reverse-engineered by Compaq, and the IBM PC became the first fully open-specification computer system, leading to its current dominance in the marketplace. Riding on this wave of popularity, the operating system vendors for the PC (Microsoft) leveraged their position to become the most powerful software company in the world.
Was IBM BIOS open or proprietary?
It seems IBM failed to take ownership of the OS and of their own BIOS. Was this the largest financial mistake in the history of the world?
--Flsaisalie 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire situation is explained in the book Accidental Empires by Robert X. Cringely. --Sean Brunnock 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which should not be used as an authoritative source about anything as Cringley/Stephens has a known tendency to embellish. Gazpacho 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compaq cloning IBM BIOS led to rise of Microsoft 

message: Reference #12 about the press statement regarding his SAT scores does not exist.  The person who found that site should correct the URL. Wikipediarules2221 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #12 

message: I removed some vandalism in which someone wrote   "Bill Gates is also related to a famous young interrlectual business boy, he goes by the name of MABAST JAF. Mabast Jaf is Mr Gates's great great cousin !!!"   I also removed the part in the introduction where it says Bill Gates is often critized for using unfair and unlawful business practices, as per WP:CITE. MickeyK 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but it doesn't always end up in court and isn't always such a phenomenon. And it would be misleading for the intro to suggest by omission that everyone loves Bill. Gazpacho 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we should no more say that everyone loves Bill than hates him, but I don't see how we'd be suggesting that by omission... I mean what more can we do to remain neutral than not mention whether people like him or don't like him? -- Renesis (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism + Negative material 

message: although microsoft has a main article, shouldnt it have a paragraph worth of something about it in the main article too? --ti 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  microsoft paragraph 

message: Hi, does anybody know a source for the following quotations :
*"The Internet? We are not interested in it" -- Bill Gates, 1993
*"The internet is just a passing fad" -- Bill Gates, 1995
greets --87.167.251.232 01:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Quotation 

message: I'm editing "Windows" subsection to remove some vandalism.
EDIT: Nevermind, someone beat me to it as I was making this comment.
--69.66.89.12 03:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Vandalism

message: bill bates is a legitimate frequent spelling error and should remain to prevent major frustration to users who make typos when spelling. I am including my self in this catagory as i have put bill bates in before and come up with the annoying wikipedia search page this would eleviate silly typos made by people like me.--Lucy-marie 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bill bates 

message: I've semi-protected this page again - in one day we've got a whole page of vandalism and not one useful edit. -- Renesis (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Yes, I read the archives, and yes I know this has been discussed... but from what I saw there was never a definitive answer one way or the other.  I think it should go.  It's irrelevant to the man, or to his actions now.  I personally believe that any references to "adding humor" to the article or "he's clearly not ashamed" are irrelevant.  Encyclopedias should not be humorous, they should be factual... and his attitude in being arrested was probably what any stupid kid's would be -- "whoa, this is cool".  I'd be surprised if he'd even received as much as a parking ticket before that night.  I have a great deal of respect for Gates, but I'm not a Gates fanatic.  My opinion is that we remove it, and if not we at least have a formal decision on it, once and for all. Coreydaj 07:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It might be different if there was some section about his "Brushes with the law", in that case it would be relevant.  However, right now I think that the mugshot and accompanying info should be removed. Bjewiki 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The event happened and it's part of his biography.  It's notable and verifiable. And it doesn't detract from the person Gates became. It shows that even people who were a little wild as kids can grow up into responsible citizens. And having the nerdy photographs says that even nerds can make it. Put it under "trivia" if you'd like, but don't delete it. –Shoaler (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoaler, I understand and respect your opinion, but I do disagree with it.  I think if we were to lookup other famous people on Wikipedia, we would not find content like the mug shot on Gates.  Also, I believe if we were to lookup other encyclopedias we would certainly not see this kind of content on any person, including Gates.  Granted, Wikipedia is unique, but I'm not sure if this type of content should establish its uniqueness and put the best foot of Wikipedia forward.  Frankly, I'm not sure how we handle this... I'm not going to be audacious enough to take the picture down myself without getting an ok from the community... question is, how do we establish a consensus one way or the other to finally get this matter addressed once and for all... Any Wikipedia Gurus out there that can help with this?  Coreydaj 07:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even Nick Nolte, who has probably the most infamous celebrity mug shot, has it included in his wikipedia entry (although it is mentioned, and i think linked to).  I'll say again, there's no context for this mugshot of gates.  Nowhere (except for the caption) is any of this legal trouble mentioned. Bjewiki 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also disagree. Photographs of Gates at that age are hard to come by, and photos that aren't legally encumbered more so (although I don't think anyone's looked into the rules on copying New Mexico mugshots). The photograph is relevant to the BASIC section, which talks about him moving to Albuquerque to work at MITS. It shows what he looked like then. Gazpacho 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we therefore add baby shots to lots of articles, since the appearance of someone through the ages is apparently reason for having a image with no context in an article? Can you really convince yourself it's there for any reason other as an attempt to discredit and be humorous? Kirkburn 09:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can and have. Gates's career in software was already underway when that picture was made. It's no more about discrediting and being humorous than the image from the antitrust deposition. Gazpacho 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with this mugshot.  The arrest was a relatively important event in his life.  It should be explained more, not less.  For instance, why was he arrested the second time? Finally, the image is on Commons so you can't nominate it here. Superm401 - Talk 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ack!  I find it a little irritating that although there is a very large wikipedia page for "lame edit wars", it seems that the only way to get a decision one way or another is by sheer exhaustion of one side of the arguement.  If there are no "wiki gods" that know how to get a decision on this, then I'm personally done with it.  You'd think there would be an escalation process with voting or some kind of mechanism like that?  I'd take the picture and verbiage off the page myself, but don't want to spend the time to have someone just revert the changes, plus it's not just my decision to make.  Coreydaj 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not persuaded by any of the comments above, remove the image and tag it for deletion from the site. I won't interfere. Gazpacho 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion of mugshot and related material 

message: I found this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/chats/transcripts/04sept01tablet.mspx
where I found this line: "Our Chief Architect (BillG) is left handed too and reminds us about this all the time."
I'm not sure if the page is referring to Bill Gates by the nickname "BillG". A search on the Internet did not reveal evidence that Bill Gates is left-handed.
I'd appreciate it if you could provide some insight towards this. Thanks :)
Another link: http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=37&story_id=1246
--ADTC 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems that way. if you search for bill gates in google image, u'll see that he mostly uses his left hand to hold whatever device he's talking about. but that's not enough evidence for wikipedia, for sure. -Sphinxridd 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Bill Gates left-handed? 

message: Bill Gates' full title has to be added somewhere in the article to meet Wikipedia's title and reference standards. Though I recomend it for inclusion in the personal life section.Gavin Scott 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Title  

message: Link number 3 is broken. Redirects to main newspaper page. As is 15, 17 and maybe also 16 (I can't reach it). Recurring dreams 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: The article claims that a score of 1590 translates roughly to an IQ of about 170.  According to whom?  There is a nearby citation, now unavailable, but I assume that cite supports the claim that Gates has an IQ of 170, *not* the claim that SAT scores are directly translatable to IQ.
Far as I know, SAT measures scholastic aptitude and IQ measures intelligence or something or other.  Even if we ignore the question of how well each does at this job, there's no reason to suppose that SAT has bloody much to do with IQ.  Where does this translation come from? Phiwum 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be removed.  Claiming 1590 SAT =~170 IQ doesn't make any sense. Laplacian 07:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  The argument seems to be something like: only one in a million score 1590 SAT and also only one in a million have 170 IQ, so the 1590 SAT is evidence for a 170 IQ.  Pretty flimsy.  Phiwum 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAT score and IQ? 

message: The article lists Gate's fortune as $82 billion. However, Forbes ranks him at 50.0 billion as of February 9th. Source: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/BH69.html?partner=msnbc and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17522267/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.118.96.180 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net Worth 

message: The popular portrayals area is getting very silly. I cleaned up a bit of it but the whole section needs work... 
Albwus 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular portrayals 

message: Is it worth mentioning that Gates has a wax sculpture of himself at the NY branch of Madame Tussauds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.119.103 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Madame Tussauds]]? 

message: *Just as a note when Gates was in school the SAT was only worth 1400 points. That would make it impossible to get a 1590. 1390 maybe, but not 1590. If someone would change that it would be appreciated.
**The above section was added in November by an anon here. I've moved it into a header so it get's archived properly. In terms of a response, from what I can tell the SAT was in fact worth 1600 in the 1970s. In any case, it's referenced although the reference is down at the moment so I can't check it Nil Einne 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAT 1590 

message: In the personal life section of the Bill Gates's article, it is mentioned that he received 4,000,000 e-mails per day in year 2004. This is originally reported incorrectly as "per day". It is actually "per year". This is already mentioned in "Highest amount of spam received" section of "Email spam" article of Wikipedia itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.162.95.229 (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emails in year [[2004]] 

message: In the introduction, it reads that Bill Gates is "respected by people who see his wealth as a product of intelligence and foresight"[6][7].
Yet by reading the followed references [6] and [7] supporting this claim, I could not extract the same conclusion. Please consider.
: I agree.  Neither reference suggests that he is respected for intelligence or foresight.  For the most part, both references simply show that he is admired, but not why he is admired.  The article about India does quote someone saying, "A lot of Indians feel that Bill Gates, by funding a development center in India, has made India a world information technology power."  But this is not respect for foresight.  It is gratitude for acting on India's behalf.
:I have changed the text accordingly. Phiwum 14:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Respected... for his intelligence and foresight"