User talk:JavaKid

Welcome!

Hello, JavaKid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 14:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: C# v. Java[edit]

I think I'm going to step out for a while. You seem to be having greater success at dealing with 24.65 than I have. Quite possibly due to your considerably greater patience and your unwillingness to flame back. At this point, 24.65 seems to think I am a flaming nut case, and my edits seem only to further inflame the issue. Sections 3 and 4 seem to stir up too much partisan debate, and ultimately, I liked the article better when it focused on the languages and the platforms, rather than the relative success of one technology or the other, which is subject to change anyway. If you'd like I can deny being your puppet, but that seems unlikely to be persuasive. I should be so lucky as to be your sock. Good luck. Tbjablin 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to look over and comment on any changes you'd like to run by me, but I think a personal appearance on the article's talk pages my inflame partisan passions, so I will restrict myself to your talk pages, until things have died down a bit more. Tbjablin 10:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that there is an article already dealing with Criticism of Java. So that's part of the problem solved, I'll simple strip all the politics from Java.vs.C# and direct folks over to that page. Perhaps there needs to be another dealing with criticism of .Net/Mono? For example, there's been claim and counterclaim that C# and .Net were politically motivated. There's also some debate over how far the legal protection Microsoft agreed with Novell for Mono extends beyond Novell customers. Is this enough to mandate a separate article, I wonder? Given that I have "Java" in my username it probably isn't wise to create an article noting criticisms of a Java rival -- even though it is with the best of intentions. Could you or someone else do this? JavaKid 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think splitting off the criticism is really a good idea. Moving criticism to its own article is generally done on Wikipedia only when criticism sections have grown overlong. How about moving all the licensing/legal/political problems to the licensing section, and creating new section to discuss compatibility of free alternatives. I think the pre-installation issue is too contentious on its own, and tends to overrepresent minorities (ie Haiku users everywhere mourn the lack of a compatible runtime. All five AtheOS users violently protest the lack of a compatible runtime.). Pre-installed is just a poor proxy for installed base, but no one really knows what the installed base is. Additionally, even though .NET is now pre-installed with Windows, most Windows users have lax updating habits, widespread deployment will likely coincide with Vista. And how come Mono won't run Worldwind? (Especially when GCJ is running Eclipse and Azureus.) I think the winning argument here is that C# and Java both have FS problems, but use different language to describe them. Editing the sentences to have explicit sectionwise parallelism may be an unobjectionable way to rectify the situation without arousing accusations of raging fanboyism. I think 24.65 views us as violently partisan hacks, and denying it is unlikely to be persuasive. Maybe we could establish some credibility if we added some convenient facts about .NET. Tbjablin 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

3RR proceedings Tbjablin 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I'd known about the 3RR before I RFC'd the article. I've never had to resolve a problem like this before, and sometimes Wikipedia can offer too much help and advice -- it becomes hard to spot the optimum path for resolution. I don't wish anything bad on 24.65.79.192, but his constant use of reverts means it's very hard to move forward towards a solution. Every time someone tries to take a step or two forward, he yanks us back to his last edits. :( JavaKid 19:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC will also be helpful. I'm hoping that when 24.65 returns, he will less likely to revert and more likely to edit, but there are also fundamental disagreements about the content and layout. The RFC will pave the forward for these articles. Tbjablin 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that 24.65 is only block for 24 hours, right? I just noticed you took down the RFC, this seems premature to me. Tbjablin 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of the 24 hour limit. I took it down as a sign of 'good faith', and after noting he has made a positive (ie. not reverting) edit to the pages after others had touched them. If he reverts (pun not intended) to his previous behaviour it is a simple job to re-add it to the admin's RFC list, which I will certainly do. JavaKid 10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classpath News[edit]

I'm not going to have time today to incorporate this, but the latest Classpath release got support for generics [1]. Tbjablin 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is a comparison, not an encyclopedia article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Woodchurch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wirral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, JavaKid. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, JavaKid. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, JavaKid. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]