User talk:Ahkin88

September 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Systems architect— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm thisma. Please note that Wikipedia is for the whole world; the laws of some of the United States, or any few countries does not change the meaning of words or phrases in other states or countries. The term "Software Architect" is about as old as "software" and possibly older than "programmer," and "software engineer." I reverted this edit as it was destructive: it made many links invalid and changed many meanings across the entire article. Making things worse: you marked your sweeping changes as a minor edit. I notice that you have made several similar edits on several other articles on Wikipedia and also marked them as minor edits. Please read the documentation on Minor edits and be sure that you work is actually minor before marking it as such. A much more constructive edit might be adding with a citation or referencing an external description of the legal ramifications of using the term architect in all of these places you assert it is restricted. -- thisma^talk 00:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, kindly note that the edits I have done were based on actual knowledge. I suggest that you should read about what Architecture and who architects are before reverting any changes. I know that Wikipedia is for the whole world and the word "Architect" is supposed to be only labeled to those who work in the field of architecture. Software and System designers are fairly new, a ten years old discipline does not mean it is right nor correct to be called that way. I am talking about Architecture; a discipline has been there for thousands of years. You guys are misleading people with the lack of knowledge you have and directing them into the wrong path. A system and software designer is not considered an architect and I am not the one who should support this talk, but you should, since you guys are the ones who are calling a fairly new discipline something should not be called that way. Ahkin88 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a user cannot change the term for the title of an article without going through the proper procedures. You can note that there is an alternate name or a more modern name, by citing a source.

See Wikipedia:Article titles. If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move. For information on page move procedures, see Wikipedia:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Requested moves.

See Wikipedia:No original research. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...."

Wikipedia:No original research#Verifiability. "Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources."

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

Please follow proper Wikipedia procedures and policies and the Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have already requested a move for the pages I have changed. Thank you again. Ahkin88 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your impatience concerning wishing to improve the article. However, the proper ways to go about these changes must be followed or there would be chaos. As I noted, you can temporarily add the alternate term and note why it is better without totally removing the term that is the title of the article. I have reverted the change again before I saw your message. I am not leaving another "warning" message because of the conflict in the timing. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask that you adhere to the policies at WP:3RR and WP:BRD.

In less than seventeen hours your changes at Systems architect have been reverted independently by three editors: User:thisma, User:Donner60 and me. You have reverted those reversions six times, including removing references to RS using this term.

In less than seventeen hours your changes at Software architect have been reverted twice by me, independently after being reverted by User:Abelmoschus Esculentus. You have reverted those reversions three times, including breaking numerous Wikilinks.

The status quo ante was that the Systems architect article was about systems architects, and the Systems design article, to which Systems designer redirects, about systems design. If you believe that the terms "systems architect" and "systems design" are synonymous, you could propose a merge of the content. Similarly, Software designer redirects to Software design: there is a separate article on software architecture.

WP:Requested moves is there to list discussions about an article's title. It is not there primarily to discuss article content. An article's title follows from its content, not the other way around. The content now says "systems designer" instead of "systems architect" only because you repeatedly change it to be so. Please also see WP:FAITACCOMPLI. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that these changes are not done arbitrarily, I have stated a legal reference and we moved to discussion to change the title to follow the contents of the article.Thank you.Ahkin88 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
So I have to formally leave this warning to you. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]