User talk:Laxrulz777
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
|
[edit] Moving articles
I notice you've been moving a lot of articles concerning Dungeons & Dragons, effectively renaming them to include the text '(Dungeons & Dragons)' in their title. Please know that this is not standard procedure on Wikipedia. While I'm not sure of current policy, there is a chance that your changes violate policy, and will need to be undone. Perhaps you should take up this issue at the Manual of Style before continuing.
Know also that I agree with you in principle regarding articles specific to a fictional universe. We should make it clear to our readers that they are reading an article regarding fictional content, as opposed to the very real voodoo relgion or the concept of white magic. -- Ec5618 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, since you participated in the earlier move proposal discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games#Naming conventions -- JHunterJ 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: APR
Please tell me what you mean by "capitalized" in this context. I suspect that this is a misunderstanding based on either terminology or timing. I am more used to a discussion of interest "compounding" than of interest "capitalization". We may also be getting into confusion because Reg Z treats open-ended and close-ended credit differently. I've just added some preliminary notes to the article in that regard.
I wonder if we are also talking at cross-purposes about the "time-effect" of the APR calculation. I clearly remember bank advertising from before the popularization of APR (1981 if I remember correctly) when it was much more common to advertise using time periods other than a year and being confused by the compounding calculations needed to sort them out. (Continuous compounding, in particular, sounded like black magic the first time I heard about it.) Reg Z does clearly require the presentation of APR in annual terms so in that sense, it does normalize for the apparent difference of compounding using different periods.
By the way, I am not an expert on UK rules either. My experience is almost solely based on US banking practices. My recent edits to the EU section of the page were based almost exclusively on some online research and external readings.
Sorry for jumping on you about interweaving comments. In other pages, that practice has the discussion impossible to follow and created serious confusion. It's become something of a pet peeve of mine. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- And now, of course, my computer hangs up, losing the edit to the APR page before I could save it. So much for all that research... Rossami (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- To my knowledge (limited to states in the southeast, admittedly), all consumer loans are required by various state laws to use simple interest. Industry standard forms (Banker's System, LaserPro and Gulfpak) don't even include other methods of interest calculation as possibilities. Under simple interest, there is no "compounding" of interest unless interest is "capitalized" (i.e. added to the loan's principal balance). This practice is generally considered unsafe and unsound by the regulatory bodies and is therefore only seen in CC companies that are not regulated by federal regulators. I think that part of your recollection from that time was the change from Rule of 78s to Simple Interest. Prior to the wide spread use of computeres, Rule of 78s was used because it was "easier". Continuous compounding has never (again, to my knowledge) been a standard industry practice because it was either a) too difficult to calculate (prior to computers) or b) legally replaced by simple interest (after Rule of 78s was phased out). Finally, the other factor that throws people off is the common practice in commercial banking of using 365/360 to squeeze just a little more out of people. However, consumer loans are generally either 365/365 ("actual") or 360/360 ("normalized") which yield the same result.
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ToM.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ToM.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
