DMChatterton

Welcome

Hello, DMChatterton, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Pondle Happy editing! Pondle (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Wales

Hi - any chance of a bit of a chat about Roman and Post-Roman Wales in the Wales talk page please? I see you've made Macsen Wledig/Magnus Maximus the star of the show and whilst I'm sure he deserves a mention, his part in Welsh history is all based on a few mentions, possibly mythical, in the Annals and Gildas. Not sure it deserves that level of notability and I see you have removed other material that was well sourced. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Electrical engineering

Hi there. Thank you for your recent contributions to Electrical engineering, but unfortunately I have found it necessary to revert them - at least for the time being. If there had not been so many edits spread over so many sections I might have tried to selectively revert/copyedit the parts I did not like. However, it is now quite difficult to unpick and you cannot expect others to do the work. I might also have considered discussion with you first if this had not been a featured article. These are the very best articles that Wikipedia has to offer and have been through an extensive review process. That is not to say that they cannot be improved, but editing of FAs is expected to be to a very high standard and more care and consideration than normal needs to go into the contribution before reaching for the keyboard. If there is any doubt, discussion of the proposed edit on the article talk page is recommended prior to actually doing it. Another issue is your lack of use of edit summaries. These are a great help to those reviewing article changes - indicating which edits are of interest and which are not. A description for all edits is strongly recommended.

• Forgive me if I am misreading this, but your edits seem to be introducing an anglo-centric bias into the article. First of all, there are the changes to the spelling system. This can often be controversial and we try to avoid making such changes unless necessary. See WP:ENGVAR for the guidelines on this. There are several other examples, for instance, moving IET in front of IEEE has no purpose as far as I can see, certainly not alphabetical: and why tag IEEE as being US while not tagging IET as being UK. IEEE is known worldwide, while IET not so much - especially as about half its members still think of it as the IEE.
• There seems to be a plague of unnecessary commas.
• The Magnetron is still used in radar today as far as I know.

I hope this does not discourage you from editing, please do continue - even on electrical engineering. If I can help you in any way please leave a note on my talk page and I will be happy to try to assist. Regards, SpinningSpark 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have chosen to revert my recent edits on Electrical Engineering mainly because you consider them to be "Anglo-centric".

By profession, I am a Chartered Electrical Engineer and Member of the IET. Although I have now retired from full-time work, I still contribute to the profession by being a member of the professional review panel for engineers applying for CEng through the IET.

I make no apologies for my Anglo-centric contributions which I made one evening from the comfort of my armchair via my laptop. In fact, I felt that the article was incomplete by not paying due regard to the UK point of view.

I am aware, having been a member of the IEEE, that this organisation does not have the same entry requirements as the IEE once did although, having amalgamated with various Institutions covering Incorporated Engineer levels (which is the level comparable with IEEE membership), the IET and IEEE are now closer in their entry requirements. However, for the CEng qualification in the UK, it is true that a Masters Degree level in Engineering is a requirement rather than the BEng and I had hoped that my edits would make this clear.

I note that you are an Administrator on the English Wikipedia and therefore must be party to ways to cope with random edits which Wikipedia seems to invite. By choosing to revert my edits, you are, in effect, declaring them to be of no value. I am not sure whether or not you are a professionally registered engineer through the Engineering Council yourself but the code of conduct for members of the profession is to respect each other's contributions. Surely you must agree that discarding a contribution made in good faith does not comply with this professional code of conduct.

DMChatterton (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have copied your post to my talkpage back here to keep the conversation together. I will always watchlist pages on which I start a conversation so there is no need to break up the thread. Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines to which all editors here are expected to comply, regardless of their qualifications. In any case reverting mistakes of others does not amount to disrespect.

I am not declaring your work to be of no value, just that I am not willing to do the work of copyediting out all the parts that are not compliant with our guidelines. You are more than welcome to make further edits to the article as long as they meet our standards. As I said above, for a lesser article, I would likely have been more tolerant, but for an article that has achieved featured status you can expect that any edit that would cause it to fail to get an FA star if it were reassessed now will be instantly reverted. Being unbalanced, country-centric (admittedly, our usual problem is US-centric articles) and wars over spelling systems are all things that will cause an FAC to fail.

SpinningSpark 18:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)