Talk:Electrical engineering/Archive 5

Minor Change

The picture of the Raydomes under the Tools and Work section is the type used for satellite antennas, not radar.

More talk between Cedars and Light current

Posting here in case Light current wants to involve an admin

I feel you are dispalying a degree of obstinacy in your refusal to discuss these changes you wish to make. Im not sure that you yet understand the processes and behavioral standards on WP. Please do not make major changes without agreement. This is the WP rule (above WP:BOLD). If you continue to change without discussion, I may have to report your actions to the Admin notice board.--Light current 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Light current,

Please feel free to report my behaviour to the admin notice board. I feel that making a selection of changes to improve the article, restoring those changes, asking for reasons why those changes were reverted (receiving none) and then restoring those changes again once they were reverted again without explanation is entirely defendable.

Cedars 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Light current,

You appear to have reverted my changes to the electrical engineering article again.

To help increase your awareness of how the project works and some relevant principles in this situation, I would invite you to read WP:BOLD and WP:OWN pages.

I have already invited you to talk about the problems you have with any of my changes here and you have refused to do so.

In my changes I have left in some things such as the extra lead picture and italic text simply in the hope that there would not be any further disputes between me and you.

Cedars 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No you seem to have it the wrong way round. YOU want to make major changes. I think it should stay. You must convince me that your changes are beneficial to the page. Why do you want to change it now, after we had reached consensus on the FA version. I just doesnt make any sense to me unless you are trying to be inflammatory. 8-|

Light current,

There is no need to convince anyone that changes are appropriate for an article, especially minor copyediting changes which are what those changes are (third party readers can see the changes here). That is exactly what WP:BOLD says. On the other hand there is a need to discuss changes that another user disagrees with and I have already invited you to post your concerns. If you like you can post your concerns with each change and then immediately revert the changes that you had a problem with. I don't care, but you can't revert all my changes without explanation especially since some of those changes are factual corrections.

Cedars 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not noticed any discussion point for these changes. Where is it? If you want to make all these changes well have to take them one at a time but I really cant see why you are wanting to do this NOW? after the page has been stable for 6 months and achieved FA status. --Light current 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You refereed me to this:

New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, without carefully looking at your edit. In addition, making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea.

In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.

Why dont you follow these rules?--Light current 01:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a new user and thes aren't major changes (you can see them here). Cedars 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit count tells me that you have not yet had as much editing experience as I and the range of pages you have edited is small by comparison. In that respect, you are a newer user than I. Also, I was referring to the bolded text above.

I have referred this to the mediation cabal.Mediation Case: 2006-09-12 Electrical engineering page--Light current 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Instead of bickering and edit warring, why don't you first engage in dialogue here as regards to why you think the edits should stay or go, respectively. It's not the end of the world if edits wrongly stay or are wrongly deleted for a day or two, but it's not worth stooping low enough to edit war. Be the bigger person and stop reverting until you've sorted things out on the talk page. -- mattb @ 2006-09-12T02:30Z

You mean I should stop reveting or Cedars should stop changing, or both? You may notice that this has been referred.--Light current 02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't specify which one of you should stop reverting, because neither one of you should have continued reverting after it was obvious you had a difference of opinion. Good gracious; you're both adults. -- mattb @ 2006-09-12T03:13Z

Well I know I am.--Light current 03:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to mediation request

Hi,

Some background on this case. I recently made the following changes over the space of several edits to the electrical engineering article. They included, among other changes, a factual correction about the inventor of the cathode ray tube and removal of some uncited material that I marked as uncited several days ago (I also contacted the IP of the person who made the changes to request citations). The aim was to improve the article (a featured article) as it can get out of shape quite quickly. At 18:03 all my changes were reverted by Light current without explanation as to what was wrong with any of them. I restored the changes and asked Light current to explain what changes he had problems with at 18:46. He didn't and has refused to do so since. If he simply explained what changes he objected to and why we might be able to move forward. But he refuses to do so, instead being stuck on some principle. If it matters, I am not a new contributor to the article in fact I nominated the article for featured status. But I feel Light current is now trying to shut me out from editing this article.

Cedars 05:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Even more talk

Moved here from my talk page--Light current 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Light current,

The mediation process does not mean we have to stop trying to communicate. I notice you have once again reverted the page and refused to explain the problems you have with my changes. I do not understand why you refuse to do this.

Cedars 00:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in discussing further becuase of your well known (to me) intransigence --Light current 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are not willing to discuss why you are reverting my changes then you should stop reverting them. I feel you are more interested in having an argument for the sake of having an argument that you are about contributing to make electrical engineering a better article. Cedars 00:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Im not arguing. Im waiting for the mediation process to begin.

In addition, making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea.

--Light current 01:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing, what you are not doing is explaining why you are reverting my changes. Cedars 06:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Still not talking

Despite another request to his talk page, Light current still refuses to talk to me and discuss what problems he has regarding my changes. If he explained what problems he had with my changes then we could move forward but he doesn't instead continually reverting my changes. Cedars 00:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The case has been referred to the mediation cabal. I awiat its process as should you! You should also refraing from making any further edits to the page in the meantime.--Light current 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The mediation process does not mean we have to stop trying to communicate. I notice you have once again reverted the page and refused to explain the problems you have with my changes. I do not understand why you refuse to do this. Cedars 00:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should note, the real loser in all of this are the readers who are now stuck with a factually incorrect version of the article. Cedars 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why didnt you pick this up before it became a FA?--Light current 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for reverting

Moved here from my talk for completeness--Light current 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Light current,

I noticed you reverted my changes to the electrical engineering article without explaining why. If you are not willing to explain specifically what problems you have with my changes, then I cannot fix my contribution to address your concerns. I hope you understand and I look forward to hearing from you how we can improve the electrical engineering together. I will restore my changes so you can review them before you post your concerns.

Cedars 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I added this comment to the bottom of the page because that is where the comments are automatically placed page when you press "+" tab at the top of the page (it was not to be disruptive).

If you want to talk about individual changes from the featured article version, then I will listen. But we must start from that version. When you have restored it to thet version, I will listen to any arguments you may have for changing it.--Light current 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Beginning Mediation

Hi - I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal who is taking the mediation case Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-12 Electrical engineering page. I can see a simmering edit war about to really boil over, and I'd like to help.

A little about me: I live in the United States. I am not an engineer, but I do have a grasp of the principles of electricity and the associated terminology. I have no axe to grind here – I want what's best for the encyclopedia. Featured articles are closely reviewed and large-scale change isn't something to be done unilaterally, but Featured articles shouldn't become stagnant and outdated, either. Hopefully we can reach a middle ground. I've read the article, the talk page archives, the article's edit history, and the mediation request. I also have an understanding of the differences between the FA version of the article and Cedars' proposed version.

Now that we've got that stuff out of the way, I'd like to make my first suggestion. Light current feels that an edit war is imminent, and Cedars agrees there's a conflict. So, the first thing I'd like to do is to establish a policy where you both agree to discuss edits here and I will make them. That way, no one will be worried about being reverted, the pressure will be taken off both of you. Not counting vandalism, vandalism reversion, and bots, no editors besides you two have made significant edits to this article since May 2006. BaseballBaby 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to this but the major issue here is not a content dispute. If it was Light current would have explained what problems he had with the changes on one of the three occasions I invited him to do so (he didn't). And he would have made some indication why he feels Karl Braun didn't invent the cathode ray tube in contrast to the Nobel Prize Foundation's biography on him [1] (he hasn't). Finding a version that we both agree on is pointless because even if this was done, we would just have another conflict the next time I want to make maintenance changes to the article and I don't want to go through this same procedure again when it happens. Cedars 10:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We will begin with the version of the article that's closest to the version prior to Cedars' edits. That's the current version at the time I write this, version 76126731, the last version by Light current. (It's identical to the last version by Leon7.) We have to start somewhere, so that's our start.

This is a voluntary process, and I have no authority whatsoever; I'm here to help you reach your own agreement. If either of you wishes to stop mediation, just let me know. I'd like to do all discussion here, so if you have questions for me please put them here. However, if you want to contact me privately about an issue that should be kept confidential, you can send an email through the email link in the sidebar.

I've checked my list, and I think that's all I've got to say – so let's get to work. BaseballBaby 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats and whys

Cedars, why do you need to changed the article? Specifically, what changes do you want to make? BaseballBaby 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to make a set of changes to keep the article up to featured standard. These include removing unsourced comments, fixing a factual error regarding who invented the cathode ray tube and juggling the position of some images around. You can review the changes I initially made here. Ultimately I would also like to remove one of the lead pictures (two lead pictures are too much for an article) and the terminology line at the top of the article (it's pointless since the difference is already explained in the lead) but I was happy to leave those in place if it would keep the peace (it didn't). Light current seems to feel he should control this article, which seems strange since he has opposed pretty much everything I have done with the article including nominating it for featured status. Furthermore I feel like Light current's main focus is not to improve this article, but simply to oppose me for the sake of opposing me because he still feels upset that he didn't get to change the article to one that fits his definition of "Electrical engineering" (which excludes electronics engineering and has been rejected by the community time and time again). Cedars 09:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As an onlooking third party, I have to say that I see nothing wrong whatosever with the changes Cedars tried to make. Some quick research does indicate that Braun should receive credit for the invention of the CRT since von Ardenne's contribution was mostly the application of the CRT to the SEM and television. Most of his other edits are just minor image reshuffling. I agree with the accuracy of his VLSI -> microelectronics change, and the other two content edits may be contested, but aren't reason for a wholesale revert of everything else. I say it's bad form on Light Current's part to rush to mediation without even explaining here what he takes issue with in the changes. I certainly don't see these changes as major, and the biggest one is correction of a factual error that definitely should stay. -- mattb @ 2006-09-17T15:43Z

Light current, what compromises were made (on both sides) to get the article to FA status? What specific issues do you have with the changes Cedars proposes to make? BaseballBaby 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no probelm with corrections of factual Error in the article. What I object to is wholesale changes in the tone of the article vis a vis the POV regarding the differences between electrical engineering and electronics engineering. Cedars and i had many bitter arguments on this aspect and we eventually came to an uneasy compromise that resulted in the featured article version.

I feel that cedars changes to the lead picture for instance tend to give the impression that electrical engineering is in fact the same as electronics engineering. Also cedars keeps removing the picture of Tesla. THis pic is essential to the history of electrical engineering. THe other changes Cedars wishes to make regard the picture layout in the subfields section. I think they look better alternated-- Cedars does not.

I realise these differences may seem trivial to BaseballBaby (and maybe some others), but I feel very strongly that if they are not resisted, cedars will continue to change the article to his own liking and out of all recognition in a few short days. THe main point Im trying to defend is the fact that Electrical engineering and Electronic engineering are different disciples. cedars wants to lump everything under electrical engineering. I believe this is not a world wide view and therefore constitutes a POV violation and is misleading to the readers of the article..

Also I find it rather strange that cedars, having agreed with me about the form of the article when it was FA, has now decided to try to unilaterally change things again. Why?--Light current 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the list of compromises etc, they are too numerous to list here but are contained in the talk archives such as [[2]]--Light current 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Describing what you take issue with is fine, but that second paragraph borders on an ad hom argument; reverting because you expect Cedars to make even more changes if you don't. You should just stick to the facts here; you may indeed have valid concerns, but they're overshadowed if you revert just to make a point. -- mattb @ 2006-09-18T00:04Z

I wasnt reverting to make a point. I reverted to stop the page going completely out of control with multiple changes bothby cedars and possibly other editors. Please dont forget that cedars and I have had many disagreements and edit wars in the past. I know what he did then. It looked like he was starting to behave in the same way again. Thats why I went for mediation rather than trying to reason with him which I found very difficult (if not impossible) previously. --Light current 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You never tried to reason with me this time and I have done nothing but try to reason with you from the very beginning. I have talked to you at length about the changes you want to make and why on previous occassions. I have let you make significant changes to this article since it was featured, but you have refused to extend to me the same courtesy. Your problem is that you cannot accept when other people (more than one) disagree with you. Cedars 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also to answer the question why? Because things change, wiki articles change, featured article standards improve and my understanding of the subject improves. If articles stop improving, Wikipedia would be a pretty boring place. What makes Wikipedia an exciting place is that articles can change to discuss current events and they can improve. Cedars 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

the plan

First, let me address one of Light current's remarks – it may sound trite, but nothing about this disagreement is trivial to me if it's important to either one of you. I probably have a different perspective, and the three of us are indeed in or are from three different countries. Knowing that, I try to be more sensitive to our respective viewpoints and approaches to a situation. If I'm not succeeding, please tell me how I can improve so I can be more effective as a mediator and as an editor.

The plan is to examine these proposed changes one or two at a time, instead of going with this version or that version. I expect the final product will be a hybrid, but there's really no way of telling right now what the hybrid will look like. Be patient, everyone, and we'll work through each proposal and give each due consideration.

I can sense one or both of you rolling your eyes at me right now, but if you think about it there's really nothing to lose by doing it this way, is there? The next step is to take it to ArbCom, which will likely make both of you pretty unhappy. Let's just work through this process and see what happens.

Oh, and I'll try not to talk so much after this. :-) BaseballBaby 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I feel you are not hearing me when I say this is not a content dispute. Nothing Light current has done has suggested he has a problem with my content (if he did he would have explained what problem he had on one of the three occassions I asked him to). This is about Light current wanting to exercise control over this article and to effectively cut me out of editing this article. If this issue is not addressed, Light current will have suceeded in this and when I next want to make a change he will complain that we had a mediation session previously and if I had wanted to make a change I should have made it then. Please address this issue, please help us find a way we can both contribute to this article. If this can be done the content dispute will resolve itself. Cedars 10:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I don't really need any of these changes to go my way. But I want to be able to drop-in from time to time and fix what I see as being wrong with the article without having all (not just some) of my changes reverted without explanation by Light current. Right now it feels like mattb is the only one hearing me. So thanks Matt, for doing that. Cedars 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Im willing to go along with Baseball's method to try to resolve the problem of content, layout and POV. I am not trying to prevent anyone editing the article, as long as it doesnt destroy its fragile integrity. The carefully argued FA version was a compromise mainly between myself and Cedars. We must now seek to reach a new compromise based on Cedars change of mind. And of course, any changes to a sensitive FA like this should of course be discussed first on the talk page. THat is common sense!--Light current 13:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you say you are "not trying to prevent anyone editing the article" when you reverted all my changes at once without explanation? The logs show, this article was awarded featured status in spite of your objections. The article has changed considerably since it was awarded featured status, yet when I make a change you immediately revert them. Cedars 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Time out. I absolutely hear what you're saying, Cedars, and I also hear what Light current is saying. I have four full pages of notes (so far) on the history and chronology of this article and the talk page/archives, and I'm not done yet. There's Cedars's version, there's Light current's version, and there's the truth. Neither of you have been angels here, and the talk pages are full of noise but very little meaningful discussion on the article.

Nobody owns this article. When the process is complete, whenever that is, the final product is _not_ to be labeled as The Mediated Version or The Compromised Version or any other type of nomenclature that would make someone think it is set in stone. It will not be official or sanctioned, and anyone will be able to edit it. That's a cold hard fact that Light current must face, whether he faces it now or when we're through. It's not going to turn out exactly like the FA version because it's already different than the FA version. Plus, other editors will make changes to the entry that Light current may not like. Light current has made a lot of fuss about 'electronics engineering,' that this article shouldn't talk about electronics. Well, we're almost certainly going to end up with some of what he believes to be electronics engineering content in there too – I have no opinion really, I'm just puzzled about all the fuss against it – and if by asking for mediation Light current believes that he will keep electronics out of this article or that the article will stay the way he wants it, he is mistaken. Bottom line: Cedars doesn't want to have to ask Light current's permission before he edits the article, because Light current doesn't own it and he's not the hall monitor "guarding" the entry. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees with Light current – it's reached through negotiation and discussion, and may take a long time to achieve.

On the other hand, Featured Articles are reviewed carefully and are referred to as "stable versions," and changes like Cedars proposes should be discussed here, on the talk page, prior to inclusion. In this case, that didn't happen. As I said up above, no significant edits had been made to this article since May 2006 – then on September 10, Cedars made the 12 edits that have brought us together. If there was discussion prior to those changes (within days, not eight or nine months ago), I have yet to find it. Instead, Cedars made the edits, Light current reacted by reverting, and _then_ Cedars asked about objections. That's backwards to the process, which is discussion on talk page first, then a change that's agreed on by consensus. In this case, there are only two or three editors in the mix, which really means that changes need to be talked about more, not less. Bottom line: Light current wants to have a discussion of changes, one or two at a time, _before_ they're made, not afterward. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees with Cedars – it's reached through negotiation and discussion and may take days or weeks to achieve.

Here's my bottom line: Light current asked MedCab to facilitate a discussion of these changes. I am working on that request, to help a good faith discussion take place which hopefully will pave the way for future discussions. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't predict what changes will be proposed to this article over the next weeks and months. I'm going to continue assuming good faith on both your parts, and I ask that you do the same.

I haven't yet looked at your responses to my last set of questions because I'm pretty tired (22-hour day today for me, and I've got toothpicks propping my eyelids open), so I'll do that when I get back online later this evening. I should also use this opportunity to tell you that later this week I will have to step away from Wikipedia for a few days due to a family member's illness. I'll let you know when that will be if we're still in mediation at that point. BaseballBaby 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Next step

I'm encouraged, because there's agreement on one point, at least – changing the inventor of the cathode ray tube from von Ardenne to Braun is acceptable to both of you. Unless there are objections, I'll make that change later today.

Since we're already in the History section, the changes to the rest of the section are a good next step. Here's what the current version says in the last line of the third paragraph:

AC eventually replaced DC for generation and power distribution, enormously extending the range and improving the safety and efficiency of power distribution.

Cedars proposes to change that sentence to:

AC eventually replaced DC for generation and power distribution.

In addition, by removing Tesla's photo Cedars removes the caption to the photo, which says:

Nikola Tesla made long-distance electrical transmission networks possible.

Light current: Is the last half of the sentence important to the article? Is there another way to include Tesla's contribution to the field without his photo? I read your statement that Tesla is crucial to explaining the history of the field; do you feel that photos of both Edison and Tesla are necessary to do that, or could this be done using text instead of images? Do you have other ideas for this section? BaseballBaby 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the last part of the senrtence is important to its meaning. ie : why did AC replace DC? Also the photo of Tesla I believe is important for the article as some people call him " the father of electrical engineering". Not in UK or US, but in Europe he is very important hero. If we have Edison, We must have Tesla. We should also have Faraday (but thatss another story). If it came to a choice of the 2, I'd want to retain the photo I think at the expense of the text to try to retain some aspect of world wide view.--Light current 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course another way of doing this is to move both pictures (Edison and Tesla) into the History of electrical engineering article and cut down the para. THe article is a bit weighty anyway.--Light current 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cedars: What are your objections to the text you removed? Did you remove the photo of Tesla as a cosmetic change – because you feel there are too many photos in the article – or do you have a specific objection to Tesla's photo? Could the caption be inserted into the text if the photo is removed? Is there a compromise you're willing to make? BaseballBaby 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, "enormously" is a peacock term. Secondly, the statement that AC extends the range of power distribution is questionable, we use high voltage direct current (HVDC) to transfer power over some of the longest distances imaginable. That said, alternating current is a better way to distribute electricity in part because it allows for more efficient and economical motors and I would have no problem with a sentence that said this. I have no problem with keeping the photo of Tesla. Cedars 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Light current brought up an interesting point when he referred to History of electrical engineering – that article is a near-identical copy to the 'History' section of this article. What about cutting the 'History' section down to a rough synopsis, maybe three or four sentences, keeping the 'see also' tag to the 'history of' article?

I would agree with doing that.--Light current 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At one screen in length, I don't feel there is any need to trim the history further. It's not a very taxing read and offers some important perspective on the history of the discipline. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind getting rid of the "history of" article or the link to it. Cedars 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about trimming the last half of the sentence to something like, "...improving the efficiency and safety of electrical transmission"? BaseballBaby 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Try "...significantly improving the efficiency of electric motors running off the grid." Cedars 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While we're up at the top, I'd like to talk about the introduction, which has two issues. First is the smaller change Cedars cut out computer science as a subfield of electrical engineering. At least in the United States, computer science and electrical engineering are completely different. The computer science article doesn't mention electrical or electronics engineering. Are there objections to leaving computer science out, or should it be changed to say "computer engineering," which is discussed briefly near the end of the article?

I dont mind leaving out computer science. After all they were completely different subjects when I was at college.--Light current 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also want to get rid of computer science. Cedars 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They have some historic relations (many of the early "computer scientists" were EEs), but computer science is much more a subfield of mathematics than engineering in its modern usage. I'd also say get rid of the claim. -- mattb @ 2006-09-20T00:22Z

Then it's gone. BaseballBaby 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Next is the omission of the lead "This article treats..." sentence. Cedars took it out because he says the introduction already covers it. He's correct – the second paragraph talks about the differences between the two at some length, and there's even a source titled "What is the difference between electrical and electronics engineering?". Light current, do you think the sentence should still be included, even though the second paragraph talks about it? If you think it should remain, why do you think the paragraph is insufficient? BaseballBaby 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have this as a note at the top (as it is now) than in the text. That way, the reader is in no doubt about the viewpoint of the article.--Light current 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the tag redundant and I want to get rid of it. Cedars 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Light current, what exactly is "the viewpoint of the article"? BaseballBaby 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The view point of the article should be neutral and present a world wide view. Without this caveat, the reader is under the impression that the term 'electrical engineering' covers everything from power generation to microelectronics all over the world. In fact this catch all usage I think is only used in Narth America and Australia.--Light current 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not true. The different meanings of electrical engineering are explained in the second paragraph of the article. Cedars 14:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward...

Hi all,

There hasn't been any word from the mediator in the last week. So I am guessing it is time for the article to return to normal editing. I will try to explain my changes a little better this time around. The two changes I want to make next are to remove the third paragraph of the article as it is not well sourced and also to remove the italic banner as the different definitions of electrical engineering are already explained in the second paragraph.

Cedars 14:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No that is an erroneous conclusion. Mediation process has not been completed. Please do not change the article.--Light current 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a little longer but otherwise, with a week past and no changes, I think it's time to move forward. Cedars 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unexpected absences...

Hi, guys – Sorry about the lack of communication. If it makes you feel better, you weren't alone – I was involved in an auto accident this last weekend. We went out for dinner, and on the way home my husband made a left turn onto our street but didn't see a car who had whipped around a third car that was stopped to make the left turn the opposite way. Result: T-bone collision, on my side. Our car is a total loss, so there's that mess to deal with. Fortunately, there are no broken bones but a lot of big bruises and soreness for the three of us. Anyway, it's going to be another couple of days before I can resume our discussion, and I'll let you know here when I'm ready. You can wait for me or discuss amongst yourselves – I don't even have to give you a topic. (It's progress that I can laugh about that without wincing. Much.) I haven't read anything here since last Thursday, and I'll catch up on it... later. Now I must take my bruised body back to bed. See you soon. BaseballBaby 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that Baseball. Glad youre not seriously hurt. Im prepared to wait becuase I feel the process is going so well. What about Cedars? Will you wait a few days bearing in mind the circumstances?--Light current 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also sorry to hear about your accident, however I would like to continue with my proposed changes. If this article is to continue to develop, Light current will need to talk to me anyway. So unless there are any objections, I am going to implement the above changes in the near future. Cedars 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cedars please show some patience and a bit of respect for the mediator Baseball baby who has taken the trouble to help us come to some amicable ageeemants so far. Dont spoil it now by your impatience!--Light current 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well these are changes I would really like to see made. So maybe we could make them and if you want to revert them we can do that or discuss that later. We did start with your version which has been more or less unchanged for two weeks. I will make the changes now. If you want I will refain from making further changes for the next week. Cedars 23:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I am going to remove “software engineering” from the lead as it seems in line with the computer science decision above. Cedars 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

I would like to add the sentence "The two disciplines have many similarities, but also significant differences." to the end of the second lead paragraph. Ordinarily I'd just do it but it is a featured article and all. :-) As an elecTRONIC engineer I have no problem helping a friend with a wiring project at their house or something but there are limits to what I'll take on in the elecTRICAL world. Middlenamefrank 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't seem to add much to the article. I would argue most things on earth, have many similarities, but also significant differences. Cedars 10:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind if its added 8-)--Light current 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the article without that sentence. A sentence like that is common in the "hamburger essay" taught in US schools, but its usually used to introduce the discussion of similiarities and differences, not to conclude it. -- The Photon 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation still required?

Does this discussion require further mediation? --Ideogram 09:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing. If the case needs to be reopened, leave a note on my talkpage. --Ideogram 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Its not been finished yet!--Light current 11:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)