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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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

Changes to Architect
The recent changes that you have made to Architect are inappropriate for several reasons: 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)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.

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)

Sockpuppetry
Based on similarity of names and editing patterns, I'm assuming that you are editing under the name 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)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

March 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

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)

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)


 * 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)

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

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


 * 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)

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  &#124;  talk  14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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  &#124;  talk  15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)

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)

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&#32;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 below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)