User talk:Goodison

Welcome!

Hello, Goodison, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some links that can help you get started editing:

And for more detailed information:

Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Malthusian (21!) (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architects Registration Board

Hi Goodison. I'd be interested to know why you edited out my January additions to the Architects Registration Board (though I see you didn't undo the corrections I made to the first paragraph).

I've restored the entry and would be grateful if you would let me have your justification for removing topical and uncontentious information. Or are you a book burner?

Salisian 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architects Registration Board

You'll see I've been back to remove your polemic. If you're in doubt about the accuracy of what is now there, have a browse though the AARUK website [1], or better still, inform yourself properly by reading the Architects Act [2]. Salisian 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

This is the second time you have used a revert. Please brush up on Wikipedia policy [3]

The entry you have chosen is inaccurate. There are three mistakes. The first is the the ARB is "the statutory regulator". The second is that it "approves" architecture courses. The third is that it "is responsible" for disclipline in the profession.

Taking the first, the Architects Act nowhere places the responsibility of "regulation" on the Board. It makes no mention of the word. True, the Board has adopted it as a casual epithet, but this has been one of the issues of contention that the profession has long held. On the other hand, no-one can argue that it is the "statutory registration body".

Secondly, the board is given no power by the Act to "approve" architecture courses, and neither has the Board ever claimed to my knowledge that it does so. That is left to the Royal Institute of british Architects and the QAA. In contradistinction, the Board, by section 4 of the Act, "prescribes qualifications".

Thirdly, to say that the Board "is responsible" for discipline in the profession is to infer that it has that unique task. It does not. For although under Part III of the Act, it has responsibilities over registered persons who are found guilty either of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence, more stringent standards are exacted by the professional bodies including the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Society of Ulster Architects and others. I would suggest that to say that it "has responsibilities for discipline in the profession" better represents the role the Board and carries no inference that this duty is unique.

You can satisfy yourself of these errors by looking at the Architects Act itself [4], which of course is objective. There you will find not one mention of the word "regulate" in the manner used, say, by the Secuties and Investments Board, and you will be able to confirm the use of the word "prescribe".

I hope you will consider these points before a third unjustified incursion. I have not chosen to restore the references to information relating to recent events. However, I would invite you to justify the entry you have now twice restored.

Salisian 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reverts(Architects Registration Board)

You continue to polemicise. This is unfortunate: please desist. You know that the Board styles itself as a regulator, but that is not an objective attribution of its function. As I have already suggested, if you are in any doubt a careful reading of the enabling statute, the Architects Act may assist. Meanwhile, please reinstate the entry so that the role of registration, not regulation, shows. And tell me, why do you not reply to me? Are you unwilling to justify what you are doing? Salisian 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV?

There seems to be a bit of preturbation on the part of Salisian. Perhaps if you discuss your changes on the discussion page of the articles you edit(such as the Architects Registration Board), when someone appears to object, and work together to acheive a good article, you might improve your ability to engage other editors here. Responsiveness to comments directed at you will also foster good will. It seems from my perspective to be a minor disconnect; however, heading it off now is better -- MUCH better -- than letting silly little squabbles and differences to escalate into distracting and uncivil edit wars and personal exchanges. I know this from experience. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 18:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]