Javaweb

Ann Dunham

I answered your query on the Dunham page, because another editor had also queried and indeed, had rolled back. I rolled back again (hope to avoid 3RR), but via Assume Good Faith -- which gave me room to explain she's been listed as "spirtual" rather than "agnostic" for the many years I've been following this. There's ample evidence for that in both Obama's own Dreams book and in the really detailed biographical book of Dunham herself that is already cited in the article. So I don't see any reason to change from the more positive-thinking "spirtual" (which Dunham apparently was) to the often negatively-connoted "agnostic"). As I said, I don't want to edit war, but I know that others who have edited this page in the past would agree.

PS: Kudos for your Ina Garten defense. Cannot believe the mean-spirited trolls who pop up on Wikipedia.

Bellagio99 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Java on the web

Hi, I'm a Java programmer and web developer. Is that the source of your name? Also, if you haven't heard of columnists Robert Knight, I know an online encyclopedia which considers him a notable person (see Robert H. Knight). --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the source. Thanks for the wikilink. I did try a Google search on "wiki Robert Knight" and it came up with another one of the 13 Robert Knights. --Javaweb (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Wikipedia editing

Thank you for your comments on my writing. As a teacher of writing, I hope that I practice what I teach. This is the first time I have experienced the editing process at Wikipedia, and the "give and take" process has been an eye opener. Also, a lot of work. Knowing how often Wikipedia is consulted, I got involved in the Clementi article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profspeak (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Kinkade

Like you, I'm not particularly passionate either way about Thomas Kinkade, but when I visited the article recently, the amount of vitriol it contained was troweled on thick. It was obvious that the person(s) who did it were carrying a grudge and presenting a very biased view. I also feel the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your recent edits to Profspeak and Tryptofish asking for them to comment on the "Trial of Ravi" article appears to be a clear case of WP:Canvassing. Please refrain from doing this in the future, as it can be considered disruptive and may even lead to a block.LedRush (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now ask for feedback on the Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi#New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi_article page, which is the complete set of interested editors. --Javaweb (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks, that was probably the right move from the start. If you'll notice, I copied a part of your message and put it on the "trial" talk page with my response.LedRush (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Javaweb (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thank you Javaweb for letting me know about this. I do not regard it as canvassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but wikipedia does. "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." Anyway, his corrective action was the right one. I should have suggested it myself instead of just warning him.LedRush (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'm glad you felt that way. I was pretty sure that you and ProfSpeak weren't aware that the new, nearly identical article topic page was active since you had not edited there. As one of the only 2 active editors I knew of on the nearly identical Clementi page not editing the Trial page, I wanted to contact both of you directly. I was concerned that just writing to the Talk page with all of its voluminous text would not get your attention as much as writing to your pages. I'm glad I was helpful. --Javaweb (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Good, I appreciate that your intention was to be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Please don't attack other editors.

I didn't attack another editor. I responded appropriately to another editor, given that editor's offcolor remarks to me. Had that editor chosen to limit his or her remarks to the article or the points I raised in reference to it, I would have responded differently. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to a) complete the bachelor of arts degree course in Wiki Rules, or b) spend hours in a sisyphean loop trying to discover how to make a complaint about other editors' bad behavior AND have something concrete done about it. Hypesmasher (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the remark you made:

1. "I notice that your userpage says you are out of the closet and proud." implying that this is somehow relevant rather than looking at his edits.
2. You said that editors are involved in "political agendizing". Please assume good faith. Thanks for listening. --Javaweb (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Section

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Suicide of Tyler Clementi". Thank you. --Hypesmasher (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. --Javaweb (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

The email was me

I'm under a bit of wikistress and was looking for an ear to vent to. Paul Austin (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paula Deen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Deen issued a statement as well:{{quote|...My team and I are working to review the workplace environment issues raised in this

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina Public Opinion of Same-sex Marriage

I've posted 4 other sources on the talk page all of which agree with the numbers originally given in the Newsmax source.97.71.50.252 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the updated poll numbers. I have made the edit, giving you the credit for finding the poll. I've given October 2013 Winthrop Poll, question T45 as the source. --Javaweb (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Ina Garten FAR

I have nominated Ina Garten for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Javaweb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Javaweb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)