User talk:MatthewFordKern

Hello MatthewFordKern. I am involved with editing the topic on enterprise architecture. It appears from the edits that you have created the table that indicates how various frameworks apply to various types of architecture. Is this article an appropriate place, in wikipedia, for that table? It is an interesting table, and perhaps the topic on architectural frameworks could benefit from it. What do you think? Can it be moved? --Nickmalik (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Noticed your recent edits for Enterprise Architecture. While it is interesting to discuss the history of the term Enterprise Architecture, perhaps that history does not need to lead the article? In keeping with the structuring of articles, I would like to move the history of the term to a later place in the article. Nickmalik (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick: I do not disagree, however definition has proven impossible without the inclusion of who created the term and their intent in the meaning. I see to add a section describing the expansion of scope that has occurred with DODAF, FSAM to business organization, but the origins must be noted to describe expansion.

In the past this article has been a battleground for opinion, I am citing and referencing everything. References and citations are also, by their very nature, historic.

Mr. Kern, I just sent you an e-mail and then checked back to see that you did, in the intervening time, respond on this page. I am comfortable using this page if you'd like, but the TALK page on the article itself is probably more appropriate. Would you be willing to discuss the article there? Nickmalik (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr Kern, Nick Malik again. I have tried to reach you via e-mail using your personal e-mail address. Please respond. Your decision to rewrite the article completely, throwing out three years of collaborative input, and replacing the text with a narrow point of view that is based on a single framework (FEAF) is not reasonable. If you want to make specific changes to the FEAF page, I strongly encourage you to do so. You are clearly a FEAF expert. However, the main page should be general and applicable, regardless of the framework you are using.

To make sure that I'm not off-base here, I blogged about the changes. I've had over 1,000 views of my post in less than 12 hours (indicating interest) and 100% of responses so far indicate that the community disagrees with your decision to rewrite the general page from a narrow, one-sided point of view in a non-collaborative manner.

I am hoping to avoid an edit war. Please use the TALK page on the Enterprise Architecture article to discuss your reasoning for making the specific edits you'd like to make. I strongly urge you to collaborate over small, specific changes. Large rewrites that belong on other pages are likely to generate consternation from the community. In the mean time, I will capture your updated page on the TALK page and revert changes. I will then attempt to move any newly added, generally applicable, and verifiable material back onto the main Enterprise Architecture page.

Nickmalik (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:MatthewFordKern/sandbox

Hello, MatthewFordKern. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:MatthewFordKern/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)