Talk:Computer repair technician

message: This is just asking for spam. Can we have consensus to delete this section please?Pedro |  Talk   14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why.  Commercial products are a major part of the toolbag. Yue.san 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SPAM. Pedro |  Talk   16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the section should remain, but needs to be watched carefully.  It's hard to be taken seriously if you're using some product that isn't an industry standard, whether it's official, or un-official.  A Generic listing should be used as opposed to a commercial one, unless the commercial one stands far above others in the repair tech community. --Ben414 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.94.7.252 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links 

message: I'm going to add a certifications section later.  The link to A+ is good, but I think more specific titles should be included.  (A+, Microsoft, Apple Certified, ect)  Unless of course, a listing exists elsewhere? Yue.san 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certifications 

message: I KNOW PCI, ISA, PCI-X, Mini-PCI, EXPRESS CARD, AND PCI-E POST CARDS EXIST BUT I AM SKEPTICAL THAT AGP P.O.S.T. TEST CARDS ARE REAL? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A DEVICE AND DOUBT THEY EXIST; A GOOGLE SEARCH RE-AFFERMS MY BELIEF. CAN SOMEONE POINT ME TO ONE AND IF NOT THEN THE REFRENCE TO AN AGP POST TEST CARD IN THE ARTICLE WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED.  --Root Beers 15:33, 29 March 2007
:As a pc tech for seven years now, I've never heard of an AGP post test card either, only PCI and ISA. Maybe it's too expensive for most pc repair shops to purchase. Jcchat66 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.O.S.T. CARD 

message: This article was restored due to a couple of people trying to dictate the direction of it.  This article does not exist anywhere else to my knowledge, so I will fight to prevent any excessive edits to it.  We have a talk page for a reason.
The people who have been contributing have an inherited knowledge of the subject from their schooling, experience, and training.
As stated in the Update 12/22/06 Section of this talk page, I will not intervene as long as the article follows somewhat along the path I pushed it towards.
The free utilities section cannot be spam, since these are unofficial programs of the trade.  The anti-spyware programs are from here, and others are from advice from my colleges, as well as contributions from other users.
The Suggested Premium Utilities and Tools section is a short list of programs the pros already use, and they offer, or recommend.  Examples of the most popular utilities was mentioned, as well as a link to other utilities mentioned on Wikipedia.
The philosophies sections should be there, albeit, it should be modified for a more NPOV if I have leaned one way or the other.
BOTTOM LINE.  An article does not exist in this detail anywhere, at least to my knowledge.  You have a responsibility to preserve this article, and discuss problems you have on the talk page, in a diplomatic way, as the creators of Wikipedia intended.  Of course this article might not conform to certain standards... that happens with new things and is normal.  The world is not black and white, as there is an infinite number of greys. --Ben414 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOT and WP:OWN in their entirety. I'm going to continue to remove prescriptive information from this article until it either finds an appropriate direction or withers to nothing. If you want to create a page of the sort you seem to be defending, please do so on Wiki books, which was specifically designed for this purpose. Chris Cunningham 14:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, but I also am experienced in this area to an extent, and I do not see how this article covers the topic well at all.  The reason I had pruned it was to remove unnecessary lists, un-encyclopaedic language and WP:POVish suggestion of specific tools - I don't see how these have a place here.--Konstable 11:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored Article

message: This article is simply bad  and just list all computers parts and needs a rewrite
((butcer))
:Please elaborate on your complaint, because as-is, it does not contribute at all either way. --Ben414 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful article 

message: I don't see a bunch of stuff online which is non-commercial. There's a really good link in the top five at Google which offers flow charts which do help understand the process, but also links to the fellow's (I'm sure worthy) book. So I can't really use that. I've fixed the intro to represent what the task base encompasses, but finding links that aren't tied to manufacturer, platform or operating system will be a bit problematic. Please feel free to make it better. BusterD 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be completely neutral about types of tools and software used without mentioning a product is impossible.  Think of an article about mp3 players without mentioning an iPod or Zune.  Think about an article on video games without mentioning Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft. A neutral POV is preferred but if you get too neutral you really can't express an article effectively.  Besides, ask a few repair services what they use and you will start to see a pattern-- a pattern that mirrors the original content of this article.   Until such a neutral, non-advertisement related tools and software can be mentioned w/o ruing the tone of the article I say their content cannot be contested. --Ben414 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I second that this link was I think relevant, Computer Repair Technician but a draconian links policy is, I think inhibiting some good examples and resources.
Tim Books 13:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Internal links to notable companies would be good examples. A commercial external link that only exists to sell a service is not (see WP:ELNO). Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One problem with this page space is that most online links are (bound to be) a sort of advertising 

message: Is anyone currently monitoring this page or working on cleaning it up? It looks a bit rough as is but I don't want to step on anyone's toes if they have a plan for how to clean this article up.  My plan is first to get some sources cited on the page to get rid of the citations for verification alert that is 12 years old.  Second (or at the same time really) is to clean up some of the grammar and rough sentence and paragraph structure.  
I read through this entire talk section and it looks like there is not much of a consensus about adding additional sections.  I will work inside of what is established although I really think we could put some info in about A+ and common certifications (if there's a consensus instead of just sprinkling those into the current areas we could break that out into its own section...your thoughts?).
Let me know who else is on here and wants to work to get this area about our (or at least my) profession a little more respectable.  Thanks for all your help Kc7txm (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Help is always appreciated. When I created this article I was heavily involved with this field but have been in another field for some time. Much has happened in the computer world since then. For example, now personal portable devices far outnumber computers and there is an entire subindustry which repairs and maintains these. I agree that the page could use new sets of eyes. BusterD (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good BusterD, thanks for the okay. I'll start working on it over the weekend then. If anyone else has some input let me know. Kc7txm (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup