Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 2

message: I did a quick Google search and found these useful Bill Gates biographies on the Internet that we can use to improve the Wikipedia article:
*Bill Gates before MS
*Bill Gates Microsoft official site
*personal history
*work history
*personal beliefs
*bill gates biography 1
*bill gates biography 2
*bill gates biography 3
*rotten.com bill gates biography
— Wackymacs 10:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources we can use 

message: The United States Constitution in fact forbids American officials, but not citizens from accepting honors and titles from foreign princes:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
As such it is not proper at all to list Gates' KBE in this article as a way of identifying him. It is against the spirit, and if Profit is construed as being a CEO of a modern public corporation, Gates' acceptance of this bauble may be illegal.
Very little precedent exists prior to the acceptance by the convicted felon Caspar Weinberger, former US official responsible for Contra destabilitization of Nicaragua, of a knighthood. NO US official or public figure has until the 1980s willingly accepted a British knighthood to my knowledge. Today, at a minimum, one would expect that the figure would not want part of his signature.
Therefore I have removed KBE. It biases the article towards a recent Anglo American "special relationship".
Away with this bauble. It is silly. It is arrogant. It sets up a New Class of people of modest accomplishments. 
That is of course only my opinion, but the article violates good NPOV style by an inappropriate foreign title.
:You are quite right that the KBE does not belong in Bill Gates's name, if for no other reason than that neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft nor either the New York Times or the Washington Post use the KBE designation.  There was a long discussion about this, which is now archived. –Shoaler (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er Bill Gates isn't the CEO of Microsoft, as the article clearly states. Also KBE is honorary title not a title of nobility Nil Einne 11:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: He's the Chief Software Architect. And to be honest, I don't even get what your argument is. Are you saying anyone involved in any management position in a US company is now allowed to accept an honourary title or what? And does this mean a British citizen or a citizen from a country where titles, honourary or otherwise? are allowed can't be in any management position on a company? You seem rather confused as well. By definition, an honourary title which you yourself admit provides no power can't be considered a title of nobility. Therefore your argument that it is against the spirit of the constitution is rather silly as the constitution seems primarily to refer to titles of nobility, which provide power, not honorary titles which provide nothing. An honourary title is a recognition of achievement and there may be debate in the merits behind who they are awarded but an honourary is an award therefore more equivalent to awards such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Honorary Citizen of the United States, Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in the USA, or for that matter the awards which are provided by non govermental organisations worldwide such as the Nobel Prize. In any case, the honourary part has little to do with the US constitution, it has to do with what the British want... Also, it is not publicly known why David Bowie rejected the CBE. For all we know, he might have been offended that it was a CBE not a KBE. Or maybe he wanted it but was afraid it would effect his reputation. He himself knows, but since he has never explained (and even if he had, how could we know he was giving the real reason). BTW, the US if anything is properly the most guilty of unjust expropriation and bullying over the past few decades. Really your rant is rather silly. You sound like some rabid US conservative who probably believes the US should blow the rest of the world to hell to spread 'freedom'. In any case, we have already established that the KBE should be part of his name in Wikipedia. Nil Einne 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW I just read that Colin Powell received an honourary KCB in 1993. Yes I'm referring to the man who was secretary of state from 2000-2004. The shock the horror. Call up Bush and tell him he has violated the US constitution! Nil Einne 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just noticed this discussion, having already added info on his KBE. It needs to be listed as this is a factual encyclopeadia. Whether or not he uses it, or whether or not he was right to be awarded it is immaterial; the event took place. Besides, many notable Americans are KBEs. I accept there is a case for not putting KBE after his name, but that fact it was awarded must be noted. Grunners 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  KBE after name considered improper [[User:Spinoza1111|Spinoza1111]] 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 

message: *Why was the following removed?
Why don't you just let the man alone! 
:As of 6 December 2005, Microsoft has 32 patents  and Bill Gates himself is a co-inventor or asignee of the following nine patents:   
# 6,970,925  Method and system for property notification  
# 6,886,155  Method and system for implementing virtual functions of an interface  
# 6,850,978  Method and system for property notification  
# 6,734,879  Method and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices  
# 6,721,898  Method and system for tracking software components  
# 6,704,924  Method and system for implementing virtual functions of an interface  
# 6,684,246  Method and system for tracking clients  
# 6,670,934  Method and system for distributing art  
# 5,552,982  Method and system for processing fields in a document processor.
:* That level of detail is not required, and the list looks messy. Also, part of that information was moved into the Microsoft section if you hadn't noticed, so it wasn't all removed. Please stop adding this to the 'Early life' section, it doesn't belong there, and the level of detail isn't required either. — Wackymacs 10:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  MS has over 5000 patents.  See http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/07/microsofts-5000th-patent-spectator-mode/.  Not sure why you're surprised.  Software patents haven't required innovation for some time now (and it's a damn shame).  Phiwum 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates the Inventor 

message: An anonymous editor recently added "KBE" to Gates' title once again. See the archive for past discussions on the matter (KBE is not used in most of his biographies). Shawnc 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And again.  The style guide says that we don't use post-nominal letters such as KBE outside Britain and Commonwealth countries. I'm going to delete it again. –Shoaler (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KBE 

message: The image on the page has been vandalised. I have no idea how to change it...
:Just go to the image, find the last unvandalized version of the picture and click rev.  It'll revert the picture back to that version.--Kross | Talk 12:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is it true that Bill Gates once worked for Apple? -An Annonymous User
:* He didn't work for Apple as an employee, he did stuff through a contract related with BASIC for the Apple II for Apple. — Wackymacs 18:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** I was quite sure he worked with Apple only in regards to Microsoft Word for the Macintosh back in 1984... -- MarkKB 09:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ***The first time he did work with Apple was in the 70s in regards to BASIC, and then with Apple in 1983/1984 after he visited them. Apple gave Gates a Macintosh prototype to work with so that they could release Word and Excel (then Multiplan) for the Mac in 1984 as its debut apps as well as MacPaint, MacDraw, etc. Later on Apple were making a MacBasic but Gates stopped them from doing this. — Wackymacs 11:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Apple? 

message: This page gets vandalised very frequently, therefore I think we should semi-protext it. Unless there is much objection I will do it soon. Martin 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've s-protected it now, even if you disagree, lets just see if it can actually improve enough over a week or so to remove the cleanup tag. Then we can go back to reverting if we must. Martin 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protect 

message: I've added KBE again, just to spite the rambling idiot Spinoza1111 who calls Ronald Reagan a "senile old fool". --65.211.7.138 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --65.211.7.138 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And unencyclopedic.  It's been removed.  Follow the damn talk page.—Kbolino 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KBE

message: Any reason IQ was dropped from early life? Ya, IQ flaunting can be a bit of a pissing match but it's still on topic. Perhaps re-add in line regarding SATs. Marskell 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ 

message: Wrong, the Brunei sultan was the richest in 1996-1997 http://www.sultanbrunei.com/
:Okay, let's go over a few things here.
:#You are referencing a site with a non-authoritative name.
:#The site's name gives away a natural bias.
:#The Sultan of Brunei is a monarch.
:#The Sultan of Brunei got wealthy by extorting his own people.
:Therefore, he should not be acknowledged as anything more than a wealthy despot.  His personal fortune does not compare to the amassed wealth of a capitalist entrepreneur.—Kbolino 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hows this for authoritative: . None of the points you gave disputes that Hassanal Bolkiah was apparently the richest man in the world at around 1997 (and I can't find anything that suggests he "extorts his own people"). I'm going to remove the "richest for the last 10 years" line from the article. Coffee 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richest in last 10 years in the world 

message: Can we please sprotect this article? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a few weeks ago, but then it was lifted 5 days later, apparently it had been too long. Martin 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well with the history being almost all vandals, I think it's worth it :\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh 

message: Does anybody know much about Gates' political views?  They seem a bit of a mystery, and something in the article would be very enlightening.  Nicholasink 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a Democrat. Gazpacho 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can find a good source, I think it would be worth adding to the article. Nicholasink 21:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is correct. It doesn't mean that Gates is a Republican, it means that he donates with the interests of the company in mind and he hasn't forgotten what the last Democratic administration did. Gazpacho 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, my understanding is in 2000 (not sure about 2004) he donated to both. Previously, he'd donated primarily (or exclusively) to the democracts. All this indicates to me he's a democrat but donates money with his company in mind Nil Einne 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to opensecrets.org, he didn't donate to either candidate in 2000, and in 2004 he donated $2,000 to both Kerry and Bush.  Aranhamo 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's wrong. If you look up his name for donations (all donations are registered and publically accessible) you will se he only donated to the Republican party. He's a Republican, Gespaccio, not a Democrat. Democrats do not give sole donations to Republicans. I don't see why this isn't listed in the writeup as most other high profile people ahve their political affiliations listed. JettaMann 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views 

message: I am just wondering how someone who has spent 1/3 of their entire life income on charity is still embroiled in controversy as to the motives of their generous nature. In the article, Bill Gates III is claimed to have spent more than $25 000 000 000 on charity. How is it that people STILL think that he has motives. It is so pathetic to see people have to pick and knaw at people who are rich, even though they donate BILLIONS of dollars to charity. Can't anyone see that Bill Gates alone has helped so many people through he and his wife's foundation? Why do people still critisize him?--138.130.220.28 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the article cited as "proof" and it is BS. It claims that he is working to help maintain a pharmaceutical monopoly and the proof is that he spend $6 billion in order to help his $200 million investment. If that makes sense to you then you really shouldn't be making contributions to Wikipedia. JettaMann 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh, I was with you until the part about worshipping.. JettaMann 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charitable Motives? 

message: Should we use :Image:Bill Gates 2004 cr.jpg because it is free? :Image:Bill Gates1.jpg seems nicer but is only fair use. Shawnc 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free use images should always be used over fair use images. If we have a free image a fair use argument might not stand up in court (in the absence of a free alternative) . Arniep 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure that's him? It just about looks like a body double to me. For example, see Steve Sires.  Either it's a double, or he literally had a bad hair day. Fishyfred 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The succession box seems inappropriate for the purpose of displaying the Forbes Richest list, so it's being removed. Shawnc 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  succession box 

message: The category-footer of the page indicates he is an athiest.  Can this be confirmed?
In a 20/20 interview of 1998, Barbara Walters asked him if he believed in God.  His reply was that he had a religous upbringing.  He didn't specify which religion, but certainly there was no indication of him being athiest.
: Do a search for "bill gates atheist" (you're spelling it wrong). This will bring up a David Frost 1995 interview where Gates basically tries to maintain an agnostic position, but it is clear that he is of a very rationalistic / scientific evidence-based frame of mind. He sounds like an atheist who tries to maintain an agnostic public image. There is no upside to Bill Gates stating outright that he is an atheist, and a significant downside, especially in the US.
:: If he didn't explicitly say, "There is no god" (or something similar), then perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't claim he is an atheist.  Maybe your story is correct, but it doesn't count as verification.  He refused to say that he is an atheist and no one but Gates counts as an expert on his beliefs. Phiwum 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Phiwum.  If he refuses to state his position on religion, then Wikipedia can only report that.  It is not Wikipedia's job to speculate about what that refusal means, and indeed, getting involved in such speculation reeks too much of what happened to poor John Seigenthaler.  --Coolcaesar 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur as well. In any case, not believing in God doesn't mean your not agnostic (although it might mean you're technically an atheist). You might want to check out the agnostic and atheist articles to better understand the meaning of each Nil Einne 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go further, and say that if his position on religion has not been a notable feature of his public life, it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. YojimboSan 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athiest? 

message: I noticed that Bill Gates is in the "Scottish Americans" category, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and indeed the "Gates family" page just lists Gates family members with no indication as to how they're related and says it's a disambiguation page, and the most obvious alternative for info (his father) doesn't mention anything about it. Perhaps it'd be good to include some sort of mention in the article/provide some sort of evidence? :) --ElectricSkrill 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that may be through his mother. The Manes book starts with a discussion of his family tree and might be helpful. I'm not sure we can say that Gates is more Scottish than he is anything else. Gazpacho 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish-Americans? 

message: My reasons for my particular wording are as follows:
*Various people have accused Gates, personally, of building and maintaining his fortune by fraud, theft, copyright infringement, anticompetition, sabotage, and perjury. They're on record, even if they haven't gone to the government.
*With so many accusations, there's no reason to single out anticompetition in the intro, even though the US v. Microsoft case is a useful recent example.
*The government authorities that find against Microsoft aren't always courts. Some of them are regulatory commissions.
Gazpacho 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical passage in intro

message: I have no idea why but there was a long protracted edit war on the Microsoft page about this by various anons and users. I eventually settled with just "international", but I do wonder whether that information is correct anymore and someone knows something I don't... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "world's largest software company" 

message: From what I understand, Bill Gates owns approximately 1 billion shares of Microsoft (representing about 9.5% of the company). With the shares trading at about $27, this adds up to about $27 billion. Yet his net worth is estimated at upwards of $50 billion. Anyone out there have any idea what assets are in the other half of his portfolio? Loomis51 11:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess he also has a rather large & diverse portfolio in many many other companies, bonds etc etc Nil Einne 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill's Portfolio 

message: In the popular culture heading, it is said that a fictional account of Bill Gates is alluded to in an episode of the X-Files. I've seen the episode in question quite a number of times (I'm a huge X-Phile), and its by no means an account of Gates, and definitely an account of arch-nemesis, Steve Jobs. Mr. Brown 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture - X-Files Reference 

message: There would appear to be some confusion on the term "richest".  The cited Forbes list has gone through lengths to determine individual fortunes, whereas the Times list clusters people into families.  The Waltons, for example, have common control over that stated block of capital - parsing out the individual intrests would leave Robson with less money than several other Waltons.  I'm not sure why they chose him (his ongoing involvement in the company)?  At that, there are several entries on the Times list that come right out and say "Forest and John" or "Karl and Theo" and then group the money.
My assumption is that the Forbes list is the correct indicator of individual wealth, as it can best be determined, and we should revert back to yesterday's version. Kuru talk 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a gazillion ways to calculate the richest person in the world.  How about we indicate that Forbes class him as richest, Times class him as second, and cite the relevant news story sites? Keeps it encyclopaedic that way, presenting the facts without insisting that one source/opinion is more reliable than another. --Oscarthecat 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worlds Richest Discussion 

message: We do not use KBE or any other post-nominal letters with Bill Gates's name since, according to the Wikipedia Style Guide, Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare. –Shoaler (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? what about Sir's? do they count for non-commonwealth citizens? WookMuff 09:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-commonwealth citizens are never entitled "Sir" or "Dame". 217.238.51.77 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KBE (again) 

message: In the article it says that both, Kristanne and Libby, are Bill's younger sisters. But this article from TIME Magazine states that Kristanne is one year older while Libby is nine years younger. Can anyone verify their ages and change the article accordingly? 217.238.40.117 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's already been fixed. The new order agrees with your reference and the Bill Gates Sr article (although that might be from the same source anyway). Nil Einne 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristanne 

message: There was an interview on The_Big_Idea_With_Donny_Deutsch that ran for like an hour a couple of days ago. Yet another source I thought I'd mention. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 07:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone is looking for something to add... 

message: I have been noticing several edits by users with the sole purpose of changing the red loss indicator arrow to a green profit indicator arrow. Clearly, there is a bit of confusion on the matter. The red loss arrow does in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, indicate DEBT. I implore you to look at other well written articles such as the one on Warren Buffet, or other billionaires whose fortunes have slowly decreased over the years. The red loss indicator is shown to indicate that the individual in question has a current net worth that is lower TODAY, than it was the LAST TIME the mentioned Forbes/Fortune article indicated his or her net worth. Please leave the indicator as a red loss arrow, since Bill Gates' wealth was estimated at 51 billion dollars on the 400 richest americans list, and is now estimated at 50 billion on the world's richest people for 2006. Please post your thoughts within this discussion, or direct them to me. I wish to enforce this with a passion, due to the immense confusion it is causing with Wikipedia terminology/jargon. Thank you. --Theelectricchild 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The red arrow makes it look very much like it means he is 50 billion in debt. There is no explanation otherwise, and that is the obvious conclusion. Martin 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On Template:Loss it says "Use  to indicate company losses." - how exactly is bill gates' worth a company loss? 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your responses. While you are correct in that the Wikipedia definition is ambiguous, one could counter-argue your point by asking how exactly is Bill Gates' worth a company profit? (Indicated by the previously used green arrow). I will try to get furthur clarification on the definition, but more discussion is welcome. Thanks.--Theelectricchild 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  After furthur consideration, it is my belief that the profit and loss indicator definitions that you are referring to should only be used for corporation information boxes. (IE Microsoft, Boeing, etc). I would think that a more appropriate solution is to develop another alternative definition for the indicators that pertain to individuals. If we go by the fact that the loss indicator depicts debt, then we would have to make the appropriate changes to individuals such as Warren Buffet, Robson Walton, and others to a green profit arrow correct? The problem I have with this, is that it contradicts the source that we are getting our information from, which is primarily Forbes.com. The lists in Forbes use a similar "key" for net worth, with up arrows indicating a positive change from a previous estimation, and down arrows indicating a negative change from a previous estimation. As a Wikipedia administrator, would it be possible for you to bring the attention of forming a new definition or perhaps more clarification on the indicators? If you think it is trivial, then that is perfectly fine, but asking never hurts! Thanks in advance for reading my response.--Theelectricchild 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment : note that the Template:Loss template is used for many individuals already, see  --Oscarthecat 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could only see a handful of individuals there, but either way, Theelectricchild, your points are perfectly rational, would a good solution be that we could put a % beside the arrow, i.e. if his worth dropped by 5%, put 5% $50.0 billion USD, then it would be clearer what it is referring to. Martin 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an excellent idea Martin. Hopefully, once we obtain that percentage information, we can include it in the article right away!--Theelectricchild 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There we go :] Rob.derosa 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Profit and Red Loss Indicator Discussion 

message: This article seems heavily biased aginast Bill Gates.--GorillazFan Adam 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be specific? Gazpacho 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the Personal Life section, one paragraph mentions the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and some notable donations.  However, almost half of that paragraph is taken up with "Journalist Greg Palast suggests that the Gates Foundation is used to make tactical donations to hide media-sensitive humanitarian side-effects of treaties, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which Gates has supported. TRIPS requires countries to agree to respect drug and other patents, therefore preventing the local manufacture of existing pharmaceuticals still under patent such as AIDS drugs in Africa.[23]", based on a single report made three years ago by  an independent 'journalist' with an axe to grind, which does not seem appropriateSuperkemp 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There is a huge chunk about Microsoft. Some of it is relevant, because of course Gates and Microsoft can't easily be separated. But what does stuff like:
"It has been pointed out that Microsoft often produces products that incorporate ideas developed outside Microsoft, such as GUIs, the BASIC programming language, or compressed file systems, without paying royalties to the companies that developed them."
Have to do with Bill Gates? I think the Microsoft section should be roughly halved in size, this is a Bill Gates article, not a Microsoft one.
Because Gates wouldn't be on the map if it wasn't for Microsoft.
:I agree that there may be a smidge too much information about Microsoft that doesn't relate to Gates' role in it. Stu 13:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A smidge? I can only assume that the volumes of information on Microsoft weren't there a month ago when you left that comment.  There's an entire article on MS here outside of Bill's involvement in the company.  Information on the MS Antitrust trials, etc, should only be included in the Bill Gates article if it directly relates to him; his testimony, etc.  -- Xinit 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much on Microsoft? 

message: If the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was founded in 2000, how is it that it "Donated $20 million in 1998 to endow a scholarship program at Melinda Gates' alma mater, Duke University" as one reads in the article on the foundation itself? (The article on the Foundation doesn't say when it was founded, but obviously it was pre-2000 if the sentence cited is correct.) --Haruo 06:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check the Foundation article again. It looks like the content in question was there on 16th June so I guess you missed it... Anyway it appears the foundation was founded in 2000 by the merger of two other foundations. One of the other foundations must have been the one to endow the scholarship programme. You're right tho it needs clarification. Nil Einne 12:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation: date of establishment? 

message: If you want to know what kind of person Bill Gates really is
read his own words below as they appear in the court record. 
I doubt my edit will remain in this article due to Bill Gate's power and wealth, but from what I've read this is the true story.
Bill Gates referred IBM to Professor Gary Kildall, the founder of Digital Research, but when they did not reach immediate agreement with him they went back to Gates, who offered to fill their need himself. He licensed a modified version of CP/M from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products for $56,000, and IBM shipped it as PC-DOS.  
Seattle Computer products needed an operating system for a computer they were making that was going to use the Intel 8088 chip.  They went to Gary Kildall and asked him to modify CP/M so it would run on Intel's 8088 chip.  Gary Kildall told Seattle Computer Products he didn't have the time.  So, Seattle Computer Products asked one of their programmers by the name of Tim Paterson to write a patch for CP/M to allow it to run on the Intel chip.  Tim Paterson did so, and named "his" creation "Quick and Dirty Dos."  Neither Tim Paterson nor Seattle Computer Products ever got permission from Gary Kildall to modify CP/M.  Even if permission had been granted, what Tim Paterson wrote would have belonged to Seattle Computer Products not to Tim Paterson, since he created it for Seattle Computer products while he was their salaried employee.  Gary Kildall could have sued Bill Gates, Microsoft and IBM, but was personally averse to litigation.  Eventually, he did sue Bill Gates, Microsoft and IBM, and won a relatively modest settlement.   
Michael D. Wolok 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got a source for Kildall suing them all? I've not heard that story before. — Wackymacs 07:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is some fantastic material for improving our articles on the history of MS-DOS, DR-DOS, PC-DOS and the Microsoft articles themselves, but if you're looking to promote a smear campaign against Bill Gates (or anyone else, for that matter), you won't get far with it on Wikipedia.  Warrens 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not for promoting your view of whom people should support. It is for verifiable and neutral information. Gazpacho 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, please research the difference between a "clone" and a "modification." Gazpacho 09:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: People who start smear campaigns usually believe they are telling the truth.  But whatever, that's not the point -- Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. It says so right in Wikipedia:Verifiability.  If you have information culled from verifiable, reliable sources that you feel is important to include in an article about Bill Gates, then by all means, please include it with citations.  Understand that you are also responsible for providing that information in a way that conforms to a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  So, check your assertions and commentary about "higher moral standards" and "philistines" at the door, and focus on writing a great encyclopedia.  That's all we're here to do.  Warrens 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Bill Gates the biggest software pirate that ever lived? 

message: I'm confused. Is Bill Gates still CSA of Microsoft? I had edited the page without any proof of this.
Thekietstuff 04:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought he had announced his plan to leave Microsoft completely, but I don't know if he's finished disentangling himself from Microsoft yet.  --Coolcaesar 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that job was handed over, he is still Chariman until 2008.<Wackymacs 06:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Um?? Warren Buffet as CEO, i highly doubt it, hes more of an investor. Besides, whats your source for this?? — Wackymacs 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Software Architect?? 

message: :Bill Gates married Melinda French of Dallas, Texas on January 1, 1994. Melinda has given birth to three children, Jennifer Katharine Gates (1996), Rory John Gates (1999) and Phoebe Adele Gates (2002).
I understand that Bill Gates doesn't actually give birth, but the way it's written makes it sound like the kids aren't Bill's, or something.  Maybe change it to "They have three children"? — Miles←☎ 03:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I made the edit as per your suggestion.  Aranhamo 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird phrasing regarding children