User talk:Guerby

Please edit at the top and follow the template, thanks!

Guerby 21:42 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC) -- template

Guerby 08:11 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC) Thanks for the links.

[anonymous->http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=142.177.75.66] 01:27 Feb 8, 2003

Recommendation: go through the list of economics articles in depth, which covers aspects of economics that go far beyond the typical neoclassical views, and is quite good about balancing the claims. Then, when you update pages on the countries and their economies, include specific links to the issue. E.g. if a country follows a non-laissez-faire agricultural policy or investment policy, you can link directly to those articles where the merits of such deviations from globalist dogma are described. And, if a country seeks some form of moral purchasing restrictions on say local governments such as municipalities, or writes its Tax, Trade and Tariff or money supply rulers based on measuring well-being, you can make reference to that without having to get into all the ideological dogmas from 'left' and 'right'.

Be specific. That's the best cure for dogma and overgeneralizations.

Economy Discussion[edit]

I'd like to find a place to discuss the pro-ultra-liberal stance of the Economy section of each country pages, I'd rather discuss first than do a quite inpolite IMHO massive edit (I'm new here :). Either there's a liberal government in place and all is well in the best possible world eg:Spain, or

the government is not liberal and it's horrible eg:France. Obvious problem The Unemployment rate evolution is not in accordance with the article "predictions". I checked and it's general for all countries. According to the charter, I would suggest to discuss this in the general Economy section instead of polluting each country page with an obviously biased paragraph. Any suggestion? Thanks in advance. -- Guerby 22:02 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Glad to see someone new has an interest in the economy pages -- many of them are somewhat outdated -- we need more resident economists! So what exactly do you think needs doing? Obviously, much of the factual information needs updating, employment figures, etc, and we can account for predictions on these, and note that they were wrong where this is the case... But we need to be more careful in suggesting or implying reasons, because we want to write from the neutral point of view (if you haven't read about that, best to do so now!). --Sam 22:20 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I read it and this was my inspiration, here is the quote "2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view. ". Time to apply this one :). For data, the OCDE provides a lot of it on its web site (and in france the INSEE with quite encyclopedic content :) -- Guerby 22:31 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

The sections are usually taken from the CIA factbook, so, while the data is probably correct, the implications may be from the point of view of that agency.--AN 22:24 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not talking to the factbook page (which is quite neutral) but of the little Economy paragraph in each country page. My proposed action would be to just suppress the biased sentences. -- Guerby 22:31 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

That should definately always be done, by default. So yeah. Go ahead! Be bold! That is actually the best advice we can give right now: just go ahead and make the changes; if someone disagrees, they will tell you. But removing bias is something few will disagree with -- if they do, it's only because they don't think it's bias.

Just do it ^TM. -- Sam

Don't forget to also take a look at the larger "Economy of..." page. The 'little paragraph' is just a part taken from that page, there will probably be more pro-capitalist/anti-socialist statements there. To show people what Guerby means, the French page now says "France has shied away from cutting exceptionally generous social welfare benefits or the enormous state bureaucracy, preferring to pare defense spending and raise taxes to keep the deficit down."

I commited my crime :). Is it ok to move the discussion above to my personal page? -- Guerby 19:37 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Stephen Gilbert 13:21 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) -- Hi Guerby. I move the economics conversation from the Village pump to here. I'm not sure how it fits into your template, so I'll leave that to you. ;-).

Tarquin 21:37 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC) -- Economy isn't one of my subjects -- the best place to ask might be the Village pump page. Or you could just go ahead and make changes :-)

Tarquin 20:44 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC) -- Hi there! Welcome to wikipedia. Au fait... on a aussi une antenne francophone: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil :-)

Tssss, not here :)

WikiProject France[edit]

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is great, so when you are done with writing in the european tribune, could you announce it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual final consumption of households[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Actual final consumption of households, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.brettonwoods.org/news/?p=257. 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) 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Java is not the origin of bytecode"[edit]

so what are the orgins of that name (as opposed to "format")?

HenkeB (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RMS? HenkeB (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read (as I'm in language design)! However, I still feel that the widespread usage of that term (i.e. outside some narrow academic circles) originated with Java - before that, it was "p-code" and "p-code interpreter" instead of "bytecodes" and "virtual machine". I'm not going to change the article though. HenkeB (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't aim at the language smalltalk, but at the word "bytecode", that's certainly not the same thing. I can't remember I ever heard (or read) it before I heard about Java. The same goes for the handful of programmers I have asked. That's all. HenkeB (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]