User talk:Charles T. Betz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Charles T. Betz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–Sango123 (e) 19:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Yes, welcome

On a personal note, thank you for participating. You may be a key to the Method Engineering issue. If there is anything I can do to help you find your way around here, please let me know. John Reid 06:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITIL and Service Management

(copy from User_talk:Mark Gillett) I'm on your side with the ITIL stuff - I think the longtime Wiki people are losing patience with the flaws but their solution is to throw the baby out w/ the bath water. Can you have a look @ the intro I just added to IT Service Management? Charles T. Betz 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Charles, appreciate the vote of support. I'm drawn to recount comments from [1] which certainly support my arguements about comprehensiveness if nothing else. I think that with a small group of people with appropriate knowledge it should be possible to achieve both accessibility and comprehensiveness. Personally I have found your contributions to be extreemly helpful. Rgds Mark G 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles, there was a batch of additional edits after mine from a non logged in user. I have tried to assimilate them but not sure that I have been effective in doing so. It would probably benefit from your objective oversight. Rgds Mark G 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

I just tagged it because it appeared to be in that manner, but I support the tag's removal. Yanksox 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know whom deleted it? You could ask them. It's still there. Yanksox 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not pestering me. I am more than happy to help. Yanksox 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IT Governance and Information technology governance

Hi Charles,

I like where you are going with the IT Governance page, it does however duplicate the theme if not any content from Information technology governance so i've tagged them for merger (which I hope won't offend).

PS. Didn't mention i'd be pleased to review your book if you're still looking for suspects!

Rgds,

Mark

[edit] IT Service Management section removal

Hello - I removed the section in question for 2 reasons:

  1. Unlike other sections, it was added with just the external link and no other content
  2. It was added by an IP with no other edit history (Special:Contributions/12.75.146.109).

That smells like spam to me, and I revert on sight. If you feel the link is appropriate, however, feel free to re-add it however you see fit (respecting External links guidelines, of course). Those guidelines can be found at WP:EL. In short, the idea is to add as much content here as possible, and add external links only sparingly. In case you want to check out spam guidelines, here's a link to that as well: WP:SPAM. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blog entry on IT Service Management

Hi Charles, the IT Service Management page has acquired a blog link from a blogger that we have seen before on the ITIL pages. As I mediated a previous dispute on the ITIL main page with regard to his addition of his own blog I don't want to take 'executive action here'. You may want to review both the blog and the disucssion on the archived ITIL talk page and the ITIL v3 talk page for further info. RgdsMark G 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemianism in American cities

I'm not sure what the point of your recent edits to the Bohemianism article is. Do you do deny that bohemian neighborhoods still exist in America's larges cities--say, in Chicago, NYC, San Francisco?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad and I beg your forgiveness. I didn't mean to delete that completely, just got distracted in the rewrite. Charles T. Betz 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of your recent edits on this article smack of POV and original research. We aren't in the business of opinion here; do some research to prove your points. - Stick Fig 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss on that article's Talk page. Charles T. Betz 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Gathering article

Cudoes and congradulations for an excellent job on the rainbow gathering article. I never thought to see it go from the mess it was to the fine article you have made it. I jumped in to seek to stem what I saw as the most egrigious abuse of the article, but I lack the skills to do what you have done. I, and I have little doubt others, have watched the work you have done, and while my praise means little, I just wanted you to know that your work is admired and appreciated. Thank you for the fine effort. Oceankat 01:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your welcome

your welcome. :) thats what im here for, reverting vandalism, i looked on the pages talk page and because of two reverts i have reveted it for you because he has rm it again Thatperson 09:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rainbow article

Thanks! If you are interested in Rainbow stuff check out Judge Dave and the Rainbow People you can get used copies for a couple of bucks. It's a really fun book to read. Pnw.hiker 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemianism and Brooks

Do you agree that the Brooks mention should remain on the Bohemianism site? If so, can you please revert it? (See the Talk page.) Charles T. Betz 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll revert the edits in this case; it seems clear to me that we can reach an amicable resolution here, but whether our anonymous user will allow us to, that's a different question entirely. - Stick Fig 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I was doing OK in keeping a civil tongue, but your gracious words make me feel like my comments have been surly. Good example setting. Charles T. Betz 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the ValIT edits

Thanks for your enhancements to the ValIT page. If you have any time, could you eyeball the Value Measuring Methodology and EABOK articles for some peer review? Also, (and this might be best off-line via email to avoid flamage) I'd appreciate your thoughts about the Enterprise Architecture page and perhaps co-ordinate a better outline/cleanup to propose via its Talk page. David T. Bath 09:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITIL/eTOM

It's an interesting debate. I can see where he is coming from, although he could have been a little less bolshy (quote me if you want, because it isn't necessary). I'm guessing he is saying that the link should be to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOM

That is the usual approach. If there is a Wikipedia page like that it is usual to link there, and thus encourage its development. The external link would be on that page. Maybe the double link triggered him, but he should have said that.

I too think eTOM is an alternative. I'll put my head above the parapet and put the statement back, but with the internal link. Binarygal

[edit] Thanks for your contribution to the ITIL v3 "debate"

I have no axe to grind with ITIL of any flavour, either for or against. But I do object to religious zealotry. So, many thanks for your considered contributions on the ITIL v3 talk page. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: charge of vandalism - thanks. Whatever the outcome, there's very little doubt in my mind that the current version of that article is a very substantial improvement over what was there before. Just a shame that the road couldn't have been a little more collaborative, and a little less confrontational. -Malleus Fatuarum 14:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Mount Rainier Nisqually Gate.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:IMG 2402 dns.jpg. The copy called Image:IMG 2402 dns.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Rainier National Park pictures

Your pictures of buildings at Mount Rainier National Park are a real benefit to the articles. Thank you, PatLeahy (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. It was a marvelous vacation and I've had a bit of an interest in the park architecture since I was young.Charles T. Betz 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemianism

I saw that you made some good contributions to the Bohemianism article in the past, and I want to express my appreciation. The article has, for the most part, been orphaned, and I am hoping to coax some of the editors who did good work in the past to return and contribute to it again. I have started work on what I hope are improvements, and would like some other opinions. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)