User talk:Engineeringworld2

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

October 2017
Hello, I'm Operator873. I noticed that you recently removed content from Engineer without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Operator873 CONNECT 20:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Software engineer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 23:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkin' like a pro!
Glad to see you responding on talk pages! I was getting worried we might end up losing a valuable new contributor. WP is a huge, unorganized mess of volunteer editors that only achieve things by our ad-hoc team cooperation. This relies heavily on edit summaries for each change, the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and finally reaching consensus for any differences of opinions. These aren't strict rules, but following along these accepted norms will avoid unnecessary turbulence.

Now that you're active on talk pages, please review talk page guidelines. Two primary points are sign your posts, and use indentations (adding one additional ":" character to start of each new comment) in discussion threads.

Welcome to Wikipedia community! --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 15:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Engineering. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Web engineering into List of engineering branches. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References at Software engineer
Any point that requires 10 references is likely WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The point that "Engineer" is a regulated term is expressed in the sentence Texas and Florida are among the states that regulate the use of terms such as computer engineer. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC).

Answer to your first claim: That is incorrect. Your claim regarding number of references is nonsense. Answer to your second claim: Some states in the United States such as Texas and California are discipline states, that regulate the exact title such as "Software Engineer", or "Mechanical Engineer". Most states on the other hand just regulate the term "Engineer" and say dont use any combination therof unless said person has an engineering license. So, they are two different things here. (User talk:Power~enwiki)


 * Power~enwiki, I believe that you are incorrect on that, but on the other hand I have seen you do a lot of first-rate work here on Wikipedia so I may be the one who is mistaken. I would like to see some refs so I can make sure that my opinions match reality. Or I could just do what so many editors do, which is type away furiously with no research. (smile)


 * As far as I can tell, the laws stop a non-degreed engineer from using the titles "Professional Engineer", "Licensed Engineer" or any other term that implies a license or certification. As far as I can tell, except in one province of of Canada, the term "Engineer" for anyone offering his services to corporations instead of the general public is unregulated everywhere in North America.


 * Famous engineers who have no engineering degree, license, or certification:
 * Steve Wozniak
 * Elon Musk
 * Henry J. Kaiser (He invented many advances the in shipbuilding and later created "Engineer Consulting", which offered engineering services to the general public).
 * Ron Popeil
 * Thomas Edison
 * Larry Ellison
 * Benjamin Franklin
 * Michael Dell


 * It isn't only engineers either. Frank Lloyd Wright, who was called "the greatest American architect of all time" by the American Institute of Architects in 1991 did not possess an architecture degree. Neither did Buckminster Fuller.


 * Related question: is offering a product that you engineered to the general public different from offering engineering to the general public? So was it fine when I designed a toy for Mattel that sold at a rate of 100,000 per hour, but if you asked me to design and build a custom toy for you I would need a license?


 * Related opinions:


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the exact details here. My main point was simply that no sentence should require 10 references; if it does it is likely WP:SYNTH.  My personal experience is that the situation in California is as you describe, but other states (such as Texas) and countries (Canada) have more strict rules about the use of the term engineer.  Offering "engineering services" is certainly different than selling a product one has engineered; and selling a toy one has engineered is different than selling a full-size bridge. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your specific changes: you're absolutely right about the Florida one, I either misread the reference or moved an existing sentence. Regarding Texas, I'm less convinced;  (by a member of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers) suggests that any title including the word "engineer" is regulated. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! You are of course right about the ten refs. And I am having problems with edits like this, where Engineeringworld2 called you a vandal and re-inserted the dubious claim that "Many states prohibit unlicensed persons from calling themselves an 'Engineer' ".

It is interesting that after California the second and third most common places where I have offered my services an a electronics engineer (always to companies, never to the general public) are Texas and British Columbia. Let's look at Texas:

The actual text of the Texas law is here: That law says:


 * This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with:


 * (1) reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or


 * (2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products manufactured by the entity.

Which appears to be exactly what I have been saying; calling yourself an electronics engineer while offering engineering services to the general public, no. Calling yourself an electronics engineer while offering engineering services to businesses, yes. Of course in my case I am not only a business offering engineering services to businesses, I am also the sole employee of a (very small) corporation that does the same - it only occupies half of a garage. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To: Guy Macon Public also includes other businesses...Go and check your engineering board. You cannot offer services to the public (which includes other businesses). Your private employer could call you whatever they please...If you are doing it in the United States I recommend you to follow the law. In all likely you are breaking the law..but, I am sure you are not the first or the last person to be breaking law...

Also don't confuse your activities Guy Macon with the activities of a private corporation...I think that is what you are doing here, you are confusing your activity with the activity of an entire corporation. Furthermore, if a corporation has "engineer" in its name, it must have at least one bonafide licensed engineer supervising work.


 * I am pretty sure that I offer my services to private corporations and that I am not in the least bit confused between the concepts of "Individual" (that's me) and "Corporation" (That's Mattel, Applied Materials, Boeing, Perkin Elmer, Parker Hannifin, SMC Pnuematics, and a bunch of other places that have hired me as an employee or consultant.)


 * Speaking of confusion, what part of "This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk)

To: Guy Macon Exactly the point...it did not say "This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the "INDIVIDUAL", which is you the individual. It says it does not apply to PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. Now, if you are calling your shop (maybe a corporation) some "Electronic Engineer" corporation with "Engineer" in the name, you better check your board... If you are talking about "PRIVATE CORPORATIONS" engineering activity, start a new page for "American corporations doing engineering activity." The page is about "Engineer" "Profession", and not "Private Corporations Activity Profession". Again, a private company calling their employees whatever they please within their internal classification is their business. Anyone can be anything within their private setting...I like to play fireman and a cop role paly in my bedroom, but that doesn't make me one...Hope this helps you...

Furthermore..To Guy Macon For your information, for corporations that offer engineering services with "Engineer" in the corporation name, there is a different license required for the corporation is called "Engineering Firm License". It is a separate license all together.


 * Got it. No have no idea what the phase "full-time employees or other personnel" means. You think that it means "private corporations". WP:CIR. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To: Guy Macon Ok full time "employees" under control of a corporation. Again, a corporation can call their employees whatever they please within their internal classification (is their business)...Start a new page called different job titles for employees in the United States Private Corporations...For instance, a "mall security officer"...is not an officer outside the boundaries of that mall (they are not even "officers" within that boundary, they cant make an arrest, or use deadly force). It means that he/she is employed, and cannot introduce themselves as such out in the world. Is a job...a great job within the boundaries of that private corporation...It did not make that person an officer. So...

If you are offering services and calling yourself an engineer...you better comply with your state law. In some states, each day that you have done this, it counts as a separate independent offense. Also, think about this. This is for your safety. What is that going to do, for someone to just decide that they are an Electronic Engineer without a proof of qualification, and decide to design a digital motor control scheme of a nuclear power plant...Yes, he/she decided to spend $100 for a corporation...Again, states have done this for public welfare and safety...


 * I would advise you to avoid all air travel in the future. Last time I checked, roughly 60% of the commercial airlines (and a fair number of military aircraft) in use either have parts that I designed of have parts that were tested using equipment that I designed (Parker Hannifin makes a lot of aircraft parts, and I was involved in many of them). I have always been fully in compliance with all state and federal laws in the countries where I have held engineering jobs. The problem (which you are blind to) is that I don't comply with the imaginary laws that only exist in your fevered imagination.


 * It wouldn't be appropriate to talk about this on Wikipedia (See WP:NLT), but my talk page has a link where you can email me. I will be glad to give you my full contact information, past job titles, and jurisdictions where I have worked so that you can report me to whatever authorities that you think will enforce your imaginary laws. Or you could complain to Boeing, Airbus, Israel Aerospace Industries or the former McDonnell Douglas, all of whom knowingly fly aircraft with parts designed by electronic engineers who lack any certificate, license or degree. It's funny sometimes how I can design a part, have it built by a machinist who also has no certificate, license or degree, but the fellow who bolts in onto the aircraft has to be a certified A&P mechanic. But that's a good rule; who says that just because I can design parts I am also skilled at applying safety wire to bolts?


 * Meanwhile, how about some citations that actually support your claims? Following WP:INDENT might also be nice. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To: Guy Macon You are confusing things....the Texas laws you are quoting are outdated version (see below for details). I am very familiar with aircraft. As I have worked on both civilian and military aircraft (for the manufacturers). The civilian aircraft business is heavily regulated and falls within the FAA mandate. Unless you are some amateur hobbyist, working on your own airplane, you are not running around making aircraft parts (on your own, without restrict supervision, and FAA oversight), that are being used in real aircraft that hauls paying passengers around... Military have their own rules, standards, and regulation that doesn't mix with the civilian world.

To: Guy Macon Again, what a private company calls their employees within the confines of that private company is their business. What about if every person on this planet decide to do what you are doing. You are here in public try to claim that you are an engineer. Something that is restricted for a reason. If you were an engineer, you would have known that engineering is a very important learned profession with paramount obligation to public safety. This page is about engineer as a Profession, not some amateur hobbyist after glory. Also, I suggest you lookup the definition of a "profession". Furthermore, being involved does not mean being a person responsible and in charge... There are a lot people that use band-aids, but that does not make them a Doctor.

To: Guy Macon "SUBCHAPTER D: FIRM AND GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY COMPLIANCE §137.71 Firm Names Pursuant to §1001.405(e), a business entity that is not registered with the board may not represent to the public by way of letters, signs, or symbols as a part of any sign, directory, listing, contract, document, pamphlet, stationery, advertisement, signature, or business name that it is engaged in the practice of engineering by using the terms: (1) “engineer,” (2)”engineering,” (3)”engineering services,” Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules Page 62 of 74 Effective 3/15/18 (4)”engineering company,” (5)”engineering, inc.,” (6)”professional engineers,” (7)”licensed engineer,” (8)”registered engineer,” (9)”licensed professional engineer,” (10) “registered professional engineer,” (11)”engineered,” or (12) any abbreviation or variation of those terms listed in (1)-(11) above, or directly or indirectly use or cause to be used any of those terms in combination with other words."

To: Guy Macon Also, the Texas Laws you are quoting are outdated version. Here is the link to the updated law: https://engineers.texas.gov/downloads/lawrules.pdf

To: Guy Macon more for you "§ 1001.405. Practice by Business Entity; Registration (a) In this section, “business entity” includes a sole proprietorship, firm, partnership, corporation, or joint stock association. (b) A business entity may not engage in the practice of engineering in this state unless: (1) the business entity is registered with the board; and (2) the practice is carried on only by engineers. (c) A business entity may register under this section by filing an application with the board on a form provided by the board. In addition to any other information required by board rule, the application must list the name and address of each officer or director of the business entity and each engineer who engages in the practice of engineering on behalf of the business entity. (d) The registration of a business entity issued under this section expires on the first anniversary of the date the registration is issued. The registration may be renewed by the filing of an updated application under Subsection (c). (e) A business entity may not represent to the public that it is engaged in the practice of engineering under any business name or use or cause to be used the term “engineer,” “engineering,” “engineering services,” “engineering company,” “engineering, inc.,” “ professional engineers,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” “licensed professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or “engineered,” or any abbreviation or variation of those terms, or directly or indirectly use or cause to be used any of those terms in combination with other words, letters, signs, or symbols as a part of any sign, directory, listing, contract, document, pamphlet, stationery, advertisement, signature, or business name unless: (1) the business entity is registered under this section; (2) the business entity is actively engaged in the practice of engineering; and (3) each service, work, or act performed by the business entity that is part of the practice of engineering is either personally performed by an engineer or directly supervised by an engineer who is a regular full-time employee of the business entity. (f) This section does not prohibit an engineer from performing engineering services on a part-time basis. (g) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the board by rule may provide that a business entity that has not previously registered with the board and that is engaged in the practice of engineering in violation of Subsection (b) is not subject to disciplinary action for the violation if the business entity registers with the board not later than the 30th day after the date the board gives written notice to the business entity of the registration requirement. This subsection does not apply to a business entity whose registration has expired. "

To: Guy Macon And some more, read the item (10) in particular is got the "private entity" for you: "§ 1001.003. Practice of Engineering (a) In this section: (1) “Design coordination” includes the review and coordination of technical submissions prepared by others, including the work of other professionals working with or under the direction of an engineer with professional regard for the ability of each professional involved in a multidisciplinary effort. (2) “Engineering survey” includes any survey activity required to support the sound conception, planning, design, construction, maintenance, or operation of an engineered project. The term does not include the surveying of real property or other activity regulated under Chapter 1071. (b) In this chapter, “practice of engineering” means the performance of or an offer or attempt to perform any public or private service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience in applying special knowledge or judgment of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to that service or creative work. (c) The practice of engineering includes: (1) consultation, investigation, evaluation, analysis, planning, engineering for program management, providing an expert engineering opinion or testimony, engineering for testing or evaluating materials for construction or other engineering use, and mapping; (2) design, conceptual design, or conceptual design coordination of engineering works or systems; (3) development or optimization of plans and specifications for engineering works or systems; (4) planning the use or alteration of land or water or the design or analysis of works or systems for the use or alteration of land or water; (5) responsible charge of engineering teaching or the teaching of engineering; (6) performing an engineering survey or study; (7) engineering for construction, alteration, or repair of real property; (8) engineering for preparation of an operating or maintenance manual; (9) engineering for review of the construction or installation of engineered works to monitor compliance with drawings or specifications; (10) a service, design, analysis, or other work performed for a public or private entity in connection with a utility, structure, building, machine, equipment, process, system, work, project, or industrial or consumer product or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, electronic, chemical, hydraulic, pneumatic, geotechnical, or thermal nature; or (11) providing an engineering opinion or analysis related to a certificate of merit under Chapter 150, Civil Practice and Remedies Code; or (12) any other professional service necessary for the planning, progress, or completion of an engineering service."

To: Guy Macon Here is a citation for you straight out of Texas Law : "§ 1001.301. License Required (a) A person may not engage in the practice of engineering unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter. (b) Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms: (1) “engineer”; (2) “professional engineer”; (3) “licensed engineer”; (4) “registered engineer”; (5) “registered professional engineer”; (6) “licensed professional engineer”; or (7) “engineered.” (c) Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person may not directly or indirectly use or cause to be used an abbreviation, word, symbol, slogan, or sign that tends or is likely to create an impression with the public that the person is qualified or authorized to engage in the practice of engineering unless the person holds a license and is practicing under this chapter. (d) A person may not receive any fee or compensation or the promise of any fee or compensation for engaging in the practice of engineering unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter. (e) A person, sole proprietorship, firm, partnership, association, or corporation that engages in or offers or attempts to engage in conduct described by this section is conclusively presumed to be engaged in the practice of engineering. (f) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not: (1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or (2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer. (g) Subsection (f) does not authorize a person to use a term listed in Subsections (b)(2)-(6) or a variation or abbreviation of one of those terms."

To: Guy Macon "SUBCHAPTER A: INDIVIDUAL AND ENGINEER COMPLIANCE --- https://engineers.texas.gov/downloads/lawrules.pdf §137.1 License Holder Designations (a) Pursuant to §1001.301 of the Act, a license holder may use the following terms when representing himself or herself to the public: (1) “engineer”, (2) “professional engineer”, (3) “licensed engineer”, (4) “registered engineer”, (5) “licensed professional engineer”, (6) “registered professional engineer”, or (7) any combination of words with or variation of the terms listed in paragraphs (1) - (6) of this subsection. (b) Certificates, seals, and other official documentation showing earlier terminology shall be considered valid for all purposes. (c) License holders who have placed their license in an inactive status pursuant to §137.13 of this chapter (relating to Inactive Status) may use the terms in §137.1(a) of this section but must include the term "inactive" or "retired" in conjunction with the designation."

To top it off you can read this article: https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/04/12/focus3.html

Please leave me alone.
I have now set my preferences so that if you ping me or email me I will not see it. If you post a reply to anything that I write anywhere on Wikipedia I will skip your message unread and move on to the next message. Because of your behavior, I do not want to have any interactions with you. Do not post to my talk page. I do not want to have anything to do with you.

I will eventually deal with the false information you have inserted into various articles, but right now I have far more important things to do, so dealing with your disruption of the encyclopedia will just have to wait. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon You owe me an apology...It is you that don't know what you are talking about. false information...?!?!?! Dont worry, I'll get to it for us. Disruption?!?!? It is you that is disruptive.

Could you please help me with this WP:CIR. Thank you Engineeringworld2 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yikes to both of you. WP:DRR would be the best way to at least put disputes aside. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  12:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think you both should at least disengage from editing the same pages to walk away from the situation and have a chance to just approach it in a better mindset. There shouldn't be a mindset on who is right. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  12:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)