User talk:Jerry20112011

Welcome!

Hello, Jerry20112011, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Architect

The recent changes that you have made to Architect are inappropriate for several reasons:

Per the Manual of style, the lead paragraph(s) should be a general summary of the article content, but the content you have added is highly specific.
The content you have added gives undue weight to the laws of the United States, whereas Wikipedia strives to take a global view of subjects.

Please take some time to get familiar with the various Wikipedia policies, and then enjoy your editing!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese

Regarding this change to System Architect: while it may (or may not) be true that "all 50 states have laws regarding the misuse of the term architect", this is an irrelevant argument when talking about a software product whose title is "System Architect". A state may prevent me from using the name "Architect" in my company name if it implies that I have a license to design buildings, but it is unlikely such laws apply to casual use of the term architect in its other connotations, such as software architecture. Please do not use Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox to limit use of the term architect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Based on similarity of names and editing patterns, I'm assuming that you are editing under the name Jerry2310 (talk · contribs) as well as this one. Please understand Wikipedia's policy against sockpuppetry: except under extraordinary circumstances, each user is expected to use only a single username. Abuse of this policy will result in both accounts being blocked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Regarding your edits to Architect, please see WP:PRIMARY. We generally don't use primary sources as references for Wikipedia articles; they require interpretation which we try to avoid as much as possible. If you can find a source that supports what you're saying, that would be the way to go. Frank | talk 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply on my talk page, most people prefer to keep conversations in one place. I am watching your page here, so if you respond, I will most likely notice you've responded to my comment.

As for the particular legal reference, architect already specifies that it is often a legally protected term; I don't see any need to belabor the issue or find references for that from multiple US states. Perhaps if you feel strongly, you should take up the issue at Talk:Architect. That way, people with an interest in the topic can express their opinions, rather than you going to individual editors' talk pages (or your own) to discuss individual edits. Frank | talk 16:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the description though it says that "system architect" is an acceptable use of the term and it is in fact illegal and this si the whole point of the addition I want to make. Architects are very specific licensed professionals. Using the term losely in other professions is unacceptable.Jerry20112011 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a citation in a reliable source that says that, we can discuss how to incorporate that into an article on Wikipedia. Frank | talk

Well Ive got 50 state laws that make it very clear. Here is one example: form the state of Maine "A person may not practice architecture or profess to practice architecture inside the State or use the title or profess to be an "architect" or "licensed architect" or display or use any words, letters, figures, titles, sign, card advertisement or other symbol or device indicating or tending to indicate that the person is an architect or is practicing architecture, or sign technical submissions unless the person is duly licensed by the board.

What more could I need?Jerry20112011 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that the intent of the Maine law is to prevent unlicensed people from offering their services as an architect of a building? Software architects generally do not present themselves as people who are qualified to design buildings. Will Peavy (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by more than one user to take this issue to a talk page, either Talk:Architect or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. Please do not make this change on the Architect page again without gaining consensus for the change. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked. 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What you need, as I stated above, is a citation from a reliable source. Please also see WP:V. Wikipedia is about verifiability. We are not lawyers, and we do not simply republish primary sources, such as statutes as you have done above. Frank | talk 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my last post I referenced an article from the Microsoft website that talks about this. Ive cited states with LAWS about this. the statement in the wiki article that reads.... In most of the world's jurisdictions, the professional and commercial uses of the term "architect", outside of the etymological variants noted, is legally protected. is incorrect, the law EXCLUDES the IT industry for using the word. I dont know how much clearer I can make it when I reference published articles and laws on the subject. Either Wikipedia is about the truth of a subject or just about common perception. Which is it?Jerry20112011 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Those who insist on pursuing the truth on Wikipedia are often disappointed to find that encyclopedic articles are far more nuanced when we have to take WP:POV, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS into account. That is not to say that "truth" is not a goal - ideally, the truth is verifiable - but sometimes the reality is more difficult than that. Frank | talk 12:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article (you did say articles were proper source)from the AIA website that talks about this and references not only microsoft, bill gates but state sources to back up my claim. How many of these articles will I need to refence before we can post the truth on teh website?

http://blog.aia.org/aiarchitect/2007/03/whats_in_a_name.html

Please have a look before changing my edit to Wikipedia.Jerry20112011 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:RS, which will help explain why a blog entry is not suitable to support your apparent crusade. Frank | talk 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, the blog you quote, and the Washington state law that it quotes, contradict your argument:

The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ or ‘architectural’ where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture.

I.e. the law only applies to people intending to provide building design services. People in other professions are free to use the term in any way they choose. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dan you have to read the entire statement which is...

Maine "A person may not practice architecture or profess to practice architecture inside the State or use the title or profess to be an "architect" or "licensed architect" or display or use any words, letters, figures, titles, sign, card advertisement or other symbol or device indicating or tending to indicate that the person is an architect or is practicing architecture, or sign technical submissions unless the person is duly licensed by the board.

Its pretty clear ANY use is illegal.Jerry20112011 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've mentioned flatly contradict your view - the issue is confined to situations where "architect" is used in reference to building design and construction, as the quote above makes perfectly plain. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion - it seems you missed this little bit of information form above it says "...or use the title ..." So how can a so called Software Architect use this title unless he or she is licensed to be an architect?Jerry20112011 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain this article please. http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/architect/thread/6d9eb6ee-5d2e-4791-8c01-7ff286a34091 ThanksJerry20112011 (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a forum, not a useful source, as is the AIA column, and the forum discusses the issue of construction and design services. Wikipedia can't reconcile the English language and Texas law. One state's obsolete legal language doesn't permit you to make such broad-brush statements, particularly when it's clear that a broader application of the term is in common use, ignored by all. The same thing happened twenty years earlier to "engineer." My wife used to be a software engineer - the term hurt my ears, knowing hundreds of licensed PEs, but it is what it is. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read it? Its a first person account of what happened to them that backs up exactly what Im saying. I can but wont post all 50 states law text but they all say basically the same thing. And Im sorry but it is not obsolete its current law. Truth by commonality is not truth.Jerry20112011 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. Texas sends nasty letters. Nevada probably does that too - they get snotty about people who are licensed in other states but aren't in Nevada calling themselves architects. Now, did you read WP:RS? Forums, blogs and the like aren't reliable sources. It obviously happened to somebody in Texas, and Texas may be more aggressive about picking on people, but this is a global encyclopedia, not Texopedia, and you've presented no reliable sources that indicate that the use of the term is enjoined outside of a few jurisdictions. Acroterion (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Architect. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry20112011 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)== Tendentious editing ==[reply]

Jerry,

I feel compelled to refer you to Wikipedia's guidelines on tendentious editing. Please read and understand these guidelines, as failure to do so will probably result in loss of editing privileges. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan but the fact remains their is a discrepency here so I've asked for citation to back up the statement that the entymological (?) reference does not mention the use of the term in Information Technology, I am completely within my editing position to ask for that or remove info if its not verifiable. Correct?Jerry20112011 (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not edit-war, even if you think you're right. I've raised the issue at WP:AN3, you're well past WP:3RR, and you really ought to take a look at WP:TEND. This is a collaboratively-edited website - you need to gain consensus, and if you haven't convinced me, an architect in the full legal sense of the term, you're going to have a hard time. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACRO what does your state law say about it?Jerry20112011 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can convince you if you ignore every source I post without even reading it?Jerry20112011 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them all, they don't support your position (the AIA blog and the Texas forum make it clear that the language is, at best, honored in the breach), and as several editors have patiently explained, they're not usable as sources on Wikipedia. I think the article is better off without any discussion of the term's legal implications if it can't be appropriately sourced. However, you seem to be on a crusade to attack the use of the term elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for such a fight. Acroterion (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont support my argument? Seriously? A software individual is told by the state to stop using the title architect becasue he isnt one and you say it doesnt support my position? laws that state it dont support my position? WOW I'd like to visit your wolrd onday it sounds like a really differant place thatn the world I live in.

Furthermore, you can't "convince" Wikipedia editors to make changes which are against existing (long-standing) policies which everyone is expected to follow when editing. I know you're blocked right now for edit-warring, but that shouldn't stop you from reading the many policies linked on this page, or just starting with WP:FIVE. Frank | talk 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious that even when following the rules (asking for citation or reference for missinformation) if others dissagree with you its futile. Its also obvious to me that Wikipedia is about common truth not actual truth and probably truth by media which is an epidemic in society today. I could write antire new artile discussing the missuse of the term architector anyhting else, do it correctly with no mistakes and everyhting perfect and if you or anyone else didnt agree with it it would get trashed, all this exercise has done is enforce my belief that people dont want to know the truth they jsut want to believe what they want to regardless what the truth or facts are. Cheers all :)Jerry20112011 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that's your interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but it would be hard for it to be more incorrect. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not what people want to believe. Any claim that is likely to be challenged must be referenced to a reliable source, so readers can refer back to those sources if they choose to do so. You are making claims that have been strongly challenged and you haven't been able to come up with suitable sources to support them, nor have you been able to develop consensus among experienced editors to include the information more than it already is. The verifiable, sourced fact that many jurisdictions regulate the use of the professional term architect already appears in some detail in professional requirements for architects, and is also mentioned in architect. The laws you cite do exist. It's the interpretation that is problematic; we are not here to do that. Frank | talk 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its interesting what you (wikipedia) considers verifiable. Actual law is not, first person accounts, are not but new articles that often have a slant by the reporter or the news outlet be them right or left or what ever, are. ASTOUNDING! You make a good point that there is reference that laws apply to the term but then in the article it says software architect is an accptable entymolgical use of the word but when I go to the bottom of the page and click on the entymology reference there is no mention of the computer industry. The statemen is missleading and there is no place for "software" in the architecture aticle except in the dissambiguous portion. I ask for a citation that software engineer is entymoligicaly correct or ask it be removed.Jerry20112011 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked, and asked, and asked, and insisted, and yet no one here agrees with you. It is mentioned in passing in the lead of the article that the term "architect" may refer to other professions than "building designer", to inform readers that they may want to look at those articles if a "building designer" is not what they are interested in. The rest of the article makes no mention of that concept, and this is appropriate. Why not stop making a mountain out of a molehill and move on to other, more useful contributions? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Dan et al. Enjoy this world you have built. I'll be outside enjoying reality. All my best.Jerry20112011 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the reality where it is illegal to call oneself a Software Architect? Where does that reality exist? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this opinion piece in Architect (the magazine is a reliable source; as an opinion piece it's not a directly citable source, but the quotes from the AIA and NCARB are), which sums the issue, and quotes the AIA and NCARB directly [1], both stating that it would be a pointless and probably lost cause to attempt legal action against anyone not obviously involved in building design: they really don't see reservation of the title as a useful or attainable goal. It summarizes the current state of reality pretty well. Please also remember that architects aren't confined to the United States: Wikipedia articles should always reflect a global perspective.Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandaslism

Dan you recently undid my edit and accused me of vandalism. please see Wikipedia's definition of vandalism:

One who wrongly accuses others of vandalismYou repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others.

Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.

Please refrain form changing my edits and accusing me of vandalsim jsut because your opinion differs. thanksJerry20112011 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Architect. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]