Talk:Engineering technologist

message: This page fails to mention an important group in the technologist milieu-medical imaging technologists.  The original author or someone equally inclined should add this important and as of yet, unstated/recognized group of technologists.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.109.65 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 August 2006  (UTC)
*That article already exists:  Radiologic technologist
ndyguy 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can not a person who works with technology toward the betterment of mankind be considered a "technologist"? This is the context to which I have always heard and understood the term.
In my country, you must graduate from a recognized program and have several years work experience to be officially a technologist. You can 'consider' someone a technologist in the context you describe, and it's likely that a person that works with technology as you describe could apply to the governing bodies for the designation and associated benefits. For instance a Canadian Engineering Technologist does not need a green card to work in the United States. I would assume the reverse is also true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.32 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as good point. As the article states, the term "technologist" is used within the scientific and engineering communities.  If you are aware of other communities or sources that define the term in a broader sense please  start a disabmiguation page.--ndyguy 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  techologist as a general term 

message: Game desgining is one of my favorite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.193.177.1 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  game desgining  

message: As described in  Profession, the engineering Technologist is not licensed and has no direct access to provide services. The technologist is legally equivalent to a technician in that an licensed engineer is required to perform works that affect the public. This is not so in other countries. ABET is moving toward requiring significantly more education and experience to become an engineer. Why then should engineering technology be considered '...separate, but intimately related professions." (Emphasis added)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.4.11 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technologist As A Profession in the United States 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Engineering technologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231001220/http://chea.org/pdf/d_Summary%20for%20ATMAE.pdf to http://www.chea.org/pdf/d_Summary%20for%20ATMAE.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Engineering technologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113190247/http://atmae.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=227&Itemid=48 to http://atmae.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=227&Itemid=48
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140510021148/http://www.bvt-online.de/en/index.htm to http://www.bvt-online.de/en/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Engineering technologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016044336/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/mapping/ to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/mapping/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Engineering technologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309233504/http://www.bvt-online.de/de/leistungen/bvt-urkunde/ to http://www.bvt-online.de/de/leistungen/bvt-urkunde/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It should be noted that the name of this entry is offensive in some countries, including the United States. Would it perhaps be better if the entry title was changed to Engineering Technology. That way, an offensive term is not used as an entry.  Thank you. EngineeringUnited (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the offence taken? 24.137.118.29 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive Terminology 

message: There's been a great deal too much edit-warring at this page recently; I've protected it for a few days in the hope of stimulating some discussion here on the talk-page. , , Saudi IPv6, would you please engage in a conversation here and try to reach agreement on what content should be in the page? Thank you!
, , I see that you recently did some cleaning-up here. Should the page again be reverted to this version pending the results of the discussion, do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm surprised this is still going on nearly a month later - there is a small thread in my talk page archives regarding this in which I encouraged  to start a talk page thread (see top of this page). In regards to your question, I think that version is a good one to restore to, yes. Ed6767 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

text: What a mess. I wonder what  hopes to achieve with this kind of unverified editorial commentary; I may end up blocking them for abusing Wikipedia. It's not a forum. The IP/IPs who reverted that and other edits are, IMO, correct, but they went about it the wrong way, of course. What  is trying to achieve is even less clear. So yes, I agree that the 30 April version is a good one to restore to--but of course that was the situation after I had removed an enormous amount of trivial and improperly verified information from the article, so I'm arguing for me, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, 2001:16A2:915B:D300:1D12:51D8:1DAA:BD22/64 probably needs a rangeblock; those 188 IPs need to be blocked for edit warring as well--that is, all the Saudi IPs. EngineeringUnited needs to make sure they're logged in when editing, and if they can't promise to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:V, they should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, to throw a bunch of anagrams around. WYQ3995, if they continue in the way they've been editing, needs to be blocked for failure to provide reliable secondary sources. What a mess. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits