This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Image:Bmc logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste from a company brochure is just blatant abuse of Wikipedia. BMC, who ever told you they would sell you a nice Wikipedia entry ripped you off. Re-write this so it's not corporate spam, or the page will be speedily deleted. 192.12.184.2 ( talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like someone toned down the advertorial and I edited it a little further. Should be ok.
Personally, I think if someone "sold" them a wikipedia entry it would probably be someone who knows what they're doing. But most company marketing and PR people try to write them themselves and recycle the corporate Kool-Aid ;-)
While there are serious sourcing and POV issues with the majority of this article, the "Notable Innovations" section was particularly egregious. The term "innovation" itself is borderline POV (IMO), and the section had five unsourced claims--some of which were fairly fantastic ("Invented data stream optimization"? You may as well claim to have invented memory management). I don't really feel like doing unpaid work for BMC's publicity office, so rather than hunt down sources for these I've simply removed the section in its entirety. A few of the trivia would be worth noting and keeping, if sourced (holding 94 technology patents, for instance), but should probably be part of another section rather than justifying a list of "innovations" which are anything but.
Amezuki (
talk)
16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I added sections; added much more information from reputable sources (NY Times, Wall St Journal, Reuters); I tightened the lead paragraph; I tried to lessen the HUGE numbers of acronyms (BGS, DoITT, etc) whenever possible; I added financial information about the stock price; I got data from an SEC filing (10Q). I didn't delete much. Right now the article is growing quickly but it needs to be better organized; I agree with many of the comments above and will try to put more impartial information so this doesn't look like an advertisement for BMC; I'll put this page on my "watchlist"; over the next few days I'll try to get better information about products and services, competitors; I'd love to see more charts and data boxes in (perhaps a chart showing the history of the directors); I'd like to get a chart showing the growth of the company in terms of employees; but this article definitely needs more visual appeal. If you're one of the Wikipedia editors who is not BMC (like me -- I'm impartial) please help me by checking over this page and making sure it doesn't get vandalized, or turned back into advertising. Let's make this a good page. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I'm pulling data from sources like NY Times, Reuters, Houston Chronicle. I'm adding facts based on these solid references. What I'm learning -- BMC is a large business software maker, which has grown substantially by acquiring smaller software firms. It's a big firm, successful, in a rapidly changing industry (computer software). What I'm saying is that most of the information I pull from established sources reflects positively on BMC; when I find critical stuff, I'll put that in too. I don't work for BMC; I'm an independent wikipedia editor who is trying to be neutral, factual; but I'm concerned that other editors will see what I've written and think (mistakenly) that I'm biased towards BMC; I'm impartial. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
It's sortable and functional; but right now it needs more specific information in it -- some of the country names may be wrong; I had trouble getting the Belgium flag and the Israel flag to appear; if I do for these countries what the pattern is for USA, it doesn't work. I'll try to put more information in this table as I come across it. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Article much better. Solid information with references, hopefully organized well. Hope it's not too boring. The "products" section perhaps could be expanded, but it's tricky describing what these software processes do. It would be great if BMC could provide moving-image diagrams of software "patrolling" a complex information-technology system. Generally, I think the images are better than nothing, but I think they could be replaced with better ones if they can be found. I'm probably not going to do any major edits on this article for a while. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Just thinking an article like this is the perfect place for some kind of interactive graphics -- like a software flowchart where if the user clicks on something, a certain pathway happens; clicks something else, something different happens. That would be really cool to have. I wonder if BMC has any stuff like this. Or whether it's possible with Wikipedia's system to have some kind of interactive graphics diagram -- I bet it's technically possible. Kind of like an exhibit at a science museum. Maybe I should try contacting BMC somehow to see if they have stuff like that, at least better diagrams, or gif files of software flowcharts, perhaps. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Added a section on this as per advice from a previous editor; this information is out there; right now the section is tiny but it will be expanded when I learn more. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
"Cleanup" and "wikify" are pretty much interchangeable, but the tags categorize the article differently, potentially attracting more editors. See WP:WPWF and WP:CLEAN for more information.
Since we haven't attracted any help yet, another approach would be to working toward good article status. I thought there was a way to request reviews, but I'm not finding it at the moment. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Update. Removed disputed references except for Wall Street Journal reference; formatted; notice external links to non-Wikipedia -- if it's Wikipedia policy to remove links to BMC Software, Remedy, other places, then I'm in favor of removing spam links. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer
Extended content
|
---|
In a spirit of fairness I wanted to relate my concerns to you, Ronz, because I don't think we're operating on the same page.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I'm a handyman from New Jersey. I have no financial interest in BMC Software. I don't own its stock. I'm a nooB (newbie) on Wikipedia, active a few months. I've contributed substantially (sometimes major expansions) to articles on Dana Delany, Statistics New Zealand, Sassa Jimenez, Suza Scalora, Allegheny College, and contributed to New Zealand, Wellington, others. I occasionally wrote software in the 1970s. I try to write quality articles.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I came upon the BMC Software article perhaps a month ago. It was covered with flags like "reads like an advertisement", "no references". It was troubled. It did look like an advertisement. I wanted to learn about software and write something respectable. So I worked perhaps ten hours researching it intensively, rewriting, with lots of references (at present there are 92). The article's size expanded from 13K bytes (Aug 3) to 80K bytes (Aug 21). I tried hard to make it fair, neutral, respectable. I put plusses and minuses about BMC -- expansions, contractions, acquisitions, layoffs. People looking over the article will agree it's fair (not an advertisement any more). I tried to make it visually appealing so I spent another hour or so combing through Wikimedia's difficult-to-search picture databases and got pretty good ones (not perfect, sometimes somewhat irrelevant I admit) -- software diagrams, picture of silicon, picture of a mainframe computer (which runs BMC software) and so forth. Further, I found SEC accounting data which I organized into accessible wikitables -- perhaps another few hours of my time, typing in numbers, double-checking, aligning columns. There wasn't one easy-to-get file. SEC data, as you know, is accounting data required by law with penalties for inaccuracies. It originates with BMC; but the SEC publishes it. The business community relies on SEC 10K data. It has great data describing the business -- employee numbers, profits, expenses, paychecks, great stuff. So, is SEC data primary or secondary? It's a judgment call, isn't it? I judged it worth including. And I think most people would agree with me here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) During my research, sometimes secondary sources didn't cover important points which I felt readers needed to know, but company sources did and for which I had no reason to doubt. For example, "The first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange with its symbol BMC was August 12, 1988". Another: Beauchamp was CEO when the company was divided into two divisions. Why would BMC lie about these things? Are they controversial? I doubt it. That doesn't ring right to me. So I included this information, knowing that yes, it's based on primary information but perhaps, in future, other editors will find a better secondary source; in the meantime, it's better than nothing, not controversial. And I included the reference so people could find where I got this stuff. These are judgment calls. Are they perfect? No, but nothing is perfect, and I'm trying my best. But overall, there were few instances, in my view, when the data was "primary" or company information -- mostly it was from respectable newspapers like the NY Times, WSJournal, Houston Chronicle. Look over the references.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) In short, I think I improved the BMC Software article substantially. It's respectable, neutral, fair, with plusses and minuses (for example, the SEC data brings out that growth during the 2000s period was lackluster), perhaps a bit boring. I bet most Wikipedia editors would agree it's a pretty good article, probably not great, but better than before. It has 92 references. Most lines had references. It's better than most business articles presently; for example, the Verizon article has only 27 references; Exxon has few references, Microsoft has 118 references but it's a much better known company (and more controversial perhaps) than BMC; Kraft Foods has 9 references; and General Electric has 40 (as of Sep 5 2009). Most business articles use SEC data in various forms and often refer to company information.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) That's what I did. I tried to contribute constructively.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Let's look at you User:Ronz. You've been on Wikipedia since 2006, following this article since Feb 2009. And I've looked through your interactions with Wikipedia. You're an excellent spam-fighter, removing dubious links actively. There's lots of spam; I sincerely appreciate your efforts (and awarded you a medal for your efforts.)-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) But my concern here is you're confusing the current BMC Software article for spam. My sense is you seek to gut this article. I've worked hard to make it respectable. It matters to me what happens to it. If it's gutted, then I'm wasting my time on Wikipedia. Why create ANY article which will be destroyed? It gets to the heart of my participation here if the hard work I do can be stripped bare for what I consider to be trivial reasons. And I'm not saying I "own" the article as per WP:OWN because I hope future editors will build upon it, correct mistakes, and improve it as time goes by, and I'll support constructive efforts.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) You've suggested the article is "too long"; you deleted about ten pictures and diagrams which I thought added visual appeal; you've reverted my recent edits; you've pasted vague tags like "Cleanup" and "Wikify" without explanations about what was meant. A tag can be helpful if it summons other editors to help or points toward specific fixes; but tags can be destructive if they're used as a form of legal vandalism and a prelude for future deletions. You've made statements like "given how huge this article is" and "the SEC filings are all primary sources" and "a large percentage of the sources are primary ones" suggesting you're pushing to eliminate entire sections.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Consider how easy it is to destroy on Wikipedia. One can remove whole chunks with a mouse click -- the revert button, the undo, poof -- gone. It took you a minute perhaps to chop out pictures which took me an hour to paste in. While it takes me perhaps ten to fourteen hours of hard work to research this subject, you could slice it to bits with a few button pushes, or reduce it to a stub. Wikipedia articles are like sandcastles which take time and effort to build but can be knocked down with a few swift kicks. Further, Wikipedia's complex rules can be misused by a user with a destructive bent to frustrate well-meaning editors, to gut articles, to wipe out quality work, to trump good judgment calls by citing a rulebook.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) These three factors -- (1) Wikipedia's anonymity (identities traceable not to real people but only computers) (2) the unfair imbalance between long creation time and fast deletion time and (3) rule complexity -- means Wikipedia is a perfect place for bullies to satisfy a personal need for power. A user armed with rules and a bent for destruction can have a field day pushing people around. And perhaps we might use the term Wikibullies to describe experienced yet secretly destructive users who browbeat fellow editors with narrow interpretations of complex rules and mask aggressiveness with a facade of helpfulness. They sour the atmosphere. They poison the place for constructive editors. They don't contribute constructively. It's my hunch that a small group of editors in Wikipedia are in this category of Wikibullies, but they wreck the place for many others. There is community discussion about why many good editors keep leaving, and one hypothesis is that they are discouraged and frustrated by destructive people playing power games. And I hope you are not one of these types.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Constructive editors pitch in and help. They fix things. They improve. They offer concrete suggestions. They don't act like some imperious forever-unsatisfied foreman with arms crossed, hissing, threatening to shut down the whole railroad down because a few ties aren't aligned. They don't nitpick. They fix the ties. If sources need improvement, why not hunt for better sources rather than use it as an excuse to excise chunks of articles? If the lead paragraph seems short, why not combine it with the overview? But you didn't do any of these things. A constructive approach would be to realize that almost all articles on businesses are lackluster, promotional, poorly written advertisements -- why not focus on improving those articles instead of the BMC article which is in much better shape, with much better references?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I studied your interactions with other users. I rarely found additions. When you're "contribute", articles shrink in terms of byte count. No doubt some of this is spam removal (which everybody supports) but in my view, with this BMC article, you're being destructive. I'll try to keep faith that your purpose here in Wikipedia is helpful, but evidence suggests otherwise.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I'd rather research and fix troubled articles rather than slog over this matter with you. If your intentions are good, persuade me with specifics. Work with me constructively to fix this article. But if your pattern of participation continues, then let's go to arbitration.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
This discussion is inappropriate. Please stop disrupting this talk page. See User_talk:Tomwsulcer#Talk_BMC_Software.E2.80.8E -- Ronz ( talk) 15:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Sources I haven't probed much include BMC's 10K filings -- sometimes accountants give rather detailed descriptions about products. I think as of today (Aug 11 2009) the "products section" is somewhat weak, while the acquisitions section is somewhat too detailed, perhaps (and needs to be intelligently put together). Sources I haven't probed that well yet include: barrons, businessweek, infoworld, Network Computing, and as I said, the SEC filings. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Update Aug 11. Used SEC 10K data to make two tables showing how BMC gets revenue, and spends $$. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Update Aug 12th article much longer -- temporary plan is to hunt for more information (particularly employee counts) also for better ideas about products and services -- some of this stuff is highly complex, and keeps changing -- I think the focus should be on current focus (with some historical background about how products have changed); then, when information is inside the article, with references, I hope to organize it better, tighten, rewrite, and make it a useful Wikipedia article; right now I admit its clumsy but this stuff just takes time. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Update Aug 12th article getting better; more information; pictures added but we need better ones that are more relevant to improve visual appeal of this article; if other editors find BETTER or MORE RELEVANT PICTURES, please switch them in and take the other ones out. I'm planning on condensing the text considerably by making it more focused, tighter; I'll probably work offline tomorrow (Aug 13th), section by section, switching them in. Plus, I need to add more information about the products (sketchy information so far; will get more.) Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Thanks, Postoak, for all the cleanup work. We've been waiting for someone with your experience to help out. It is appreciated.
My comments about primary sources are a bit scattered and have received no response yet, so I'm collecting my comments and expanding upon them a bit:
"Ideally, press releases and similar documents should only be used to expand upon information that has already been identified as important by independent sources. Given how huge this article is, the easiest areas to trim are those sourced only with BMC's own publications." We still have a lot of primary sources. As I pointed out, this is in itself not necessarily a problem. "It is the combination of using primary and self-published sources with few or no independent sources that is the problem." "The SEC filings are all primary sources, of course. When an article begins with "BMC Software Inc., a Houston-based maker of management software, said..." or something similar, it's almost always just a press release. Similarly, the NYT "Technology Briefing" articles are short compilations of press releases."
At this point, we could use some help trimming the article in the same way that I did the images: trimming and abridging content that is of dubious importance, not sourced by independent, reliable sources. Sections such as History, Acquisitions, Competitors, Assets, Financial performance, and Operations could all be easily trimmed around what secondary and tertiary sources we have. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the tag as well as remove a couple of the most problematic sections. This is an encyclopedia article, not a financial analysis. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Acquisitions section per above. I've tagged History, Competitors, and Assets. I don't think the latter two belong without many more and better refs. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Right now the article is rather large and somewhat unwieldy but please don't delete anything until I get more primary information in (w/references) which should happen in the next week (Aug 12-Aug19th 2009) after that then it's time to organize, compress, combine. It would be really neat to have a chart of their stock price over time, or perhaps a table showing how the number of employees has grown over time. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I've been using this format -- "In 1999, ..." -- to begin many sentences. The idea is to make organizing information easier later. I know it's redundant but please don't edit this until more information is added, so then consolidation can be done subsequently. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
The article is also grossly misleading when it talks about Bravo Mike Charlie and LAYOFFS! After the Remedy merger BMC announced a 900 person layoff company wide. That 900 was almost 17% of the workforce, the end result was that BMC displaced over 1200 when all was said and done..that is a 20% RIF! These were not the only layoffs. After each merger, there was a round of layoffs. Stating that BMC did NOT have layoffs after a merger is an outright lie. You also mention that BMC has posted profits since 2002, that again, is wrong. When Bob Beachum took over, BMC went 8 straight quarters NOT meeting their sales projections. The stocks tumbled from a high of $82/share to $34/share under his watch. The acquistion of Remedy is the ONLY thing that put the company in the "black" because Remedy's profits were counted as BMC revenue that year. I suggest a more careful review of history before posting any more info. 38.100.52.196 ( talk) 11:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to list competitors. A lot of company Wikis have a list of competitors and it's important piece of information.
Saying that the competitor section is "pointless" isn't very polite.
See Wikis on Xilinx, a huge chip company; Applied Materials, a gigantic company, or even some of the big software giants SAP AG and Adobe. They all have a section on the competition.
Doesn't have to be a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcbronline\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
BMC Software. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BMC Software. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I am an employee of BMC, and I have made some edits to the BMC page and plan to make some additional changes to update the information. I will not be using promotional language and will use high-quality independent sources for any facts added to the article. Tamicasey ( talk) 19:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am continuing the efforts of my colleague Tamicasey, to make the article about our company more accurate and up-to-date. (The IP edit a few minutes was me, as well as the one from my account.) Like Tami, I am aware of the concerns around conflict of interest, so I am being careful to use high quality sources and avoid promotional language, and I am especially interested in feedback on my work. Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on BMC Software. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6901435When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains a problem, which I introduced by mistake in an earlier edit. BMC's offerings are not primarily SAAS (though that is an increasingly important part of our business model). Though the article linked mentioned SAAS, the characterization I introduced in the text I added was incorrect.
Taking into account the point GermanJoe made above, I have drafted a new version of the first paragraph, removing words like "help," "rapidly," and "reliably" with "works with" and "effectively." I believe this is a reasonable reflection of the independent sources, but am open to suggestion. I have introduced a new citation to a recent Forbes piece, and reintroduced the European Business Review citation from my earlier edit. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 22:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The company identifies its strategy as "digital enterprise management;" it works with companies of various sizes to deploy digital services effectively, serving both existing and new infrastructure. [1] Its business model, which previously consisted mostly of on-premise solutions but increasingly incorporates Software as a service (SAAS), and is addressing the "digital transformation" trend. [2] [3] References
|
Header added for readability. GermanJoe ( talk) 01:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe and Ronz, we have a new president and CEO. It seems like a straightforward/factual change, so I noted this in the article myself. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe and Ronz, I think we are all in agreement that many of the sections contain too much unsourced detail, or detail that is sourced only to self-published sources or SEC reports. Looking through the article history, it appears that most of the content was added by long-time Wikipedians, so in dealing with this older material, I don't think it actually results from COI editors. But regardless of that, here is a suggestion for a starting point:
We looked through the History (1990s and 2000s) section, and I think there are a few themes that could be addressed. Overall, there are a lot of extensive quotes; to better match Wikipedia style, I would think most of those should be removed and paraphrased in a few words.
The entire 2nd paragraph of "1900s" might be deleted, or most of it; it characterizes a pattern that does not seem to be sourced, and the sources the paragraph does contain (which don't really support the text anyway) are all self-published.
The Boole's Command Post paragraph paragraph seems far longer than it needs to be. (Specifically, is it helpful to speculate on the differences between a $877 million vs. a 1 billion purchase price? That range seems small enough that, almost 20 years after the fact, I'm wondering who would care.)
The 2nd paragraph in "2000s" goes into detail about ASP that may belong at the ASP article, but seems extra here.
On a separate note, I notice there are short articles on BMC Control-M and Remedy Corp. Should those maybe be merged into this one?
If helpful, I can make the suggestions more specific, but I want to check with you guys first. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the further improvements you made in my sandbox to the 1990s section. I have reviewed everything you did and agree with it all, you caught some worthwhile stuff for removal. But I'm sure you don't need my consent! You do not seem to be disagreeing with any of my changes, just going further down the road of tidying up issues that have existed for years. This seems encouraging. The University of Houston part may have some relevance, which is why I didn't delete it, but it will take some digging for sources to demonstrate it, so I'm fine with deleting it at least for now, while I do a little further research. As far as I'm concerned the draft can be moved back into the article now. Whether or not it's perfect, I think we're both agreed that it's better than the current version, correct? - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That looks good, thank you! I am now starting on the 2000s section at User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 2000s sandbox (as you suggested, not in my main sandbox). I will let you know when I'm done. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
GermanJoe and Ronz, I have made some further suggestions for trimming and summarizing the 2000s section here: User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 2000s sandbox. Some of the acquisitions are sourced only to BMC press releases; if you think it would be better to remove those ones entirely, that's fine with me. Please feel free to edit my sandbox directly, or to copy it back to the article if you feel it is an improvement over what is already here.
In addition, several sections would make more sense as subsections of "History," and/or have redundant info. I suggest:
If these general ideas are agreeable, let me know and I will get more specific. I don't know if I can make these changes as easily in a sandbox since they will involve multiple sections, but I will find a way to suggest them.
Once we have finished tidying up the historical sections, I would like to make some suggestions for bringing "Products and services" up to date, and perhaps expanding the lead section, of course using independent sourcing and subject to the approval of uninvolved Wikipedians. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Image:Bmc logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste from a company brochure is just blatant abuse of Wikipedia. BMC, who ever told you they would sell you a nice Wikipedia entry ripped you off. Re-write this so it's not corporate spam, or the page will be speedily deleted. 192.12.184.2 ( talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like someone toned down the advertorial and I edited it a little further. Should be ok.
Personally, I think if someone "sold" them a wikipedia entry it would probably be someone who knows what they're doing. But most company marketing and PR people try to write them themselves and recycle the corporate Kool-Aid ;-)
While there are serious sourcing and POV issues with the majority of this article, the "Notable Innovations" section was particularly egregious. The term "innovation" itself is borderline POV (IMO), and the section had five unsourced claims--some of which were fairly fantastic ("Invented data stream optimization"? You may as well claim to have invented memory management). I don't really feel like doing unpaid work for BMC's publicity office, so rather than hunt down sources for these I've simply removed the section in its entirety. A few of the trivia would be worth noting and keeping, if sourced (holding 94 technology patents, for instance), but should probably be part of another section rather than justifying a list of "innovations" which are anything but.
Amezuki (
talk)
16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I added sections; added much more information from reputable sources (NY Times, Wall St Journal, Reuters); I tightened the lead paragraph; I tried to lessen the HUGE numbers of acronyms (BGS, DoITT, etc) whenever possible; I added financial information about the stock price; I got data from an SEC filing (10Q). I didn't delete much. Right now the article is growing quickly but it needs to be better organized; I agree with many of the comments above and will try to put more impartial information so this doesn't look like an advertisement for BMC; I'll put this page on my "watchlist"; over the next few days I'll try to get better information about products and services, competitors; I'd love to see more charts and data boxes in (perhaps a chart showing the history of the directors); I'd like to get a chart showing the growth of the company in terms of employees; but this article definitely needs more visual appeal. If you're one of the Wikipedia editors who is not BMC (like me -- I'm impartial) please help me by checking over this page and making sure it doesn't get vandalized, or turned back into advertising. Let's make this a good page. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I'm pulling data from sources like NY Times, Reuters, Houston Chronicle. I'm adding facts based on these solid references. What I'm learning -- BMC is a large business software maker, which has grown substantially by acquiring smaller software firms. It's a big firm, successful, in a rapidly changing industry (computer software). What I'm saying is that most of the information I pull from established sources reflects positively on BMC; when I find critical stuff, I'll put that in too. I don't work for BMC; I'm an independent wikipedia editor who is trying to be neutral, factual; but I'm concerned that other editors will see what I've written and think (mistakenly) that I'm biased towards BMC; I'm impartial. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
It's sortable and functional; but right now it needs more specific information in it -- some of the country names may be wrong; I had trouble getting the Belgium flag and the Israel flag to appear; if I do for these countries what the pattern is for USA, it doesn't work. I'll try to put more information in this table as I come across it. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Article much better. Solid information with references, hopefully organized well. Hope it's not too boring. The "products" section perhaps could be expanded, but it's tricky describing what these software processes do. It would be great if BMC could provide moving-image diagrams of software "patrolling" a complex information-technology system. Generally, I think the images are better than nothing, but I think they could be replaced with better ones if they can be found. I'm probably not going to do any major edits on this article for a while. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Just thinking an article like this is the perfect place for some kind of interactive graphics -- like a software flowchart where if the user clicks on something, a certain pathway happens; clicks something else, something different happens. That would be really cool to have. I wonder if BMC has any stuff like this. Or whether it's possible with Wikipedia's system to have some kind of interactive graphics diagram -- I bet it's technically possible. Kind of like an exhibit at a science museum. Maybe I should try contacting BMC somehow to see if they have stuff like that, at least better diagrams, or gif files of software flowcharts, perhaps. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Added a section on this as per advice from a previous editor; this information is out there; right now the section is tiny but it will be expanded when I learn more. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
"Cleanup" and "wikify" are pretty much interchangeable, but the tags categorize the article differently, potentially attracting more editors. See WP:WPWF and WP:CLEAN for more information.
Since we haven't attracted any help yet, another approach would be to working toward good article status. I thought there was a way to request reviews, but I'm not finding it at the moment. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Update. Removed disputed references except for Wall Street Journal reference; formatted; notice external links to non-Wikipedia -- if it's Wikipedia policy to remove links to BMC Software, Remedy, other places, then I'm in favor of removing spam links. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer
Extended content
|
---|
In a spirit of fairness I wanted to relate my concerns to you, Ronz, because I don't think we're operating on the same page.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I'm a handyman from New Jersey. I have no financial interest in BMC Software. I don't own its stock. I'm a nooB (newbie) on Wikipedia, active a few months. I've contributed substantially (sometimes major expansions) to articles on Dana Delany, Statistics New Zealand, Sassa Jimenez, Suza Scalora, Allegheny College, and contributed to New Zealand, Wellington, others. I occasionally wrote software in the 1970s. I try to write quality articles.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I came upon the BMC Software article perhaps a month ago. It was covered with flags like "reads like an advertisement", "no references". It was troubled. It did look like an advertisement. I wanted to learn about software and write something respectable. So I worked perhaps ten hours researching it intensively, rewriting, with lots of references (at present there are 92). The article's size expanded from 13K bytes (Aug 3) to 80K bytes (Aug 21). I tried hard to make it fair, neutral, respectable. I put plusses and minuses about BMC -- expansions, contractions, acquisitions, layoffs. People looking over the article will agree it's fair (not an advertisement any more). I tried to make it visually appealing so I spent another hour or so combing through Wikimedia's difficult-to-search picture databases and got pretty good ones (not perfect, sometimes somewhat irrelevant I admit) -- software diagrams, picture of silicon, picture of a mainframe computer (which runs BMC software) and so forth. Further, I found SEC accounting data which I organized into accessible wikitables -- perhaps another few hours of my time, typing in numbers, double-checking, aligning columns. There wasn't one easy-to-get file. SEC data, as you know, is accounting data required by law with penalties for inaccuracies. It originates with BMC; but the SEC publishes it. The business community relies on SEC 10K data. It has great data describing the business -- employee numbers, profits, expenses, paychecks, great stuff. So, is SEC data primary or secondary? It's a judgment call, isn't it? I judged it worth including. And I think most people would agree with me here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) During my research, sometimes secondary sources didn't cover important points which I felt readers needed to know, but company sources did and for which I had no reason to doubt. For example, "The first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange with its symbol BMC was August 12, 1988". Another: Beauchamp was CEO when the company was divided into two divisions. Why would BMC lie about these things? Are they controversial? I doubt it. That doesn't ring right to me. So I included this information, knowing that yes, it's based on primary information but perhaps, in future, other editors will find a better secondary source; in the meantime, it's better than nothing, not controversial. And I included the reference so people could find where I got this stuff. These are judgment calls. Are they perfect? No, but nothing is perfect, and I'm trying my best. But overall, there were few instances, in my view, when the data was "primary" or company information -- mostly it was from respectable newspapers like the NY Times, WSJournal, Houston Chronicle. Look over the references.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) In short, I think I improved the BMC Software article substantially. It's respectable, neutral, fair, with plusses and minuses (for example, the SEC data brings out that growth during the 2000s period was lackluster), perhaps a bit boring. I bet most Wikipedia editors would agree it's a pretty good article, probably not great, but better than before. It has 92 references. Most lines had references. It's better than most business articles presently; for example, the Verizon article has only 27 references; Exxon has few references, Microsoft has 118 references but it's a much better known company (and more controversial perhaps) than BMC; Kraft Foods has 9 references; and General Electric has 40 (as of Sep 5 2009). Most business articles use SEC data in various forms and often refer to company information.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) That's what I did. I tried to contribute constructively.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Let's look at you User:Ronz. You've been on Wikipedia since 2006, following this article since Feb 2009. And I've looked through your interactions with Wikipedia. You're an excellent spam-fighter, removing dubious links actively. There's lots of spam; I sincerely appreciate your efforts (and awarded you a medal for your efforts.)-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) But my concern here is you're confusing the current BMC Software article for spam. My sense is you seek to gut this article. I've worked hard to make it respectable. It matters to me what happens to it. If it's gutted, then I'm wasting my time on Wikipedia. Why create ANY article which will be destroyed? It gets to the heart of my participation here if the hard work I do can be stripped bare for what I consider to be trivial reasons. And I'm not saying I "own" the article as per WP:OWN because I hope future editors will build upon it, correct mistakes, and improve it as time goes by, and I'll support constructive efforts.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) You've suggested the article is "too long"; you deleted about ten pictures and diagrams which I thought added visual appeal; you've reverted my recent edits; you've pasted vague tags like "Cleanup" and "Wikify" without explanations about what was meant. A tag can be helpful if it summons other editors to help or points toward specific fixes; but tags can be destructive if they're used as a form of legal vandalism and a prelude for future deletions. You've made statements like "given how huge this article is" and "the SEC filings are all primary sources" and "a large percentage of the sources are primary ones" suggesting you're pushing to eliminate entire sections.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Consider how easy it is to destroy on Wikipedia. One can remove whole chunks with a mouse click -- the revert button, the undo, poof -- gone. It took you a minute perhaps to chop out pictures which took me an hour to paste in. While it takes me perhaps ten to fourteen hours of hard work to research this subject, you could slice it to bits with a few button pushes, or reduce it to a stub. Wikipedia articles are like sandcastles which take time and effort to build but can be knocked down with a few swift kicks. Further, Wikipedia's complex rules can be misused by a user with a destructive bent to frustrate well-meaning editors, to gut articles, to wipe out quality work, to trump good judgment calls by citing a rulebook.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) These three factors -- (1) Wikipedia's anonymity (identities traceable not to real people but only computers) (2) the unfair imbalance between long creation time and fast deletion time and (3) rule complexity -- means Wikipedia is a perfect place for bullies to satisfy a personal need for power. A user armed with rules and a bent for destruction can have a field day pushing people around. And perhaps we might use the term Wikibullies to describe experienced yet secretly destructive users who browbeat fellow editors with narrow interpretations of complex rules and mask aggressiveness with a facade of helpfulness. They sour the atmosphere. They poison the place for constructive editors. They don't contribute constructively. It's my hunch that a small group of editors in Wikipedia are in this category of Wikibullies, but they wreck the place for many others. There is community discussion about why many good editors keep leaving, and one hypothesis is that they are discouraged and frustrated by destructive people playing power games. And I hope you are not one of these types.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Constructive editors pitch in and help. They fix things. They improve. They offer concrete suggestions. They don't act like some imperious forever-unsatisfied foreman with arms crossed, hissing, threatening to shut down the whole railroad down because a few ties aren't aligned. They don't nitpick. They fix the ties. If sources need improvement, why not hunt for better sources rather than use it as an excuse to excise chunks of articles? If the lead paragraph seems short, why not combine it with the overview? But you didn't do any of these things. A constructive approach would be to realize that almost all articles on businesses are lackluster, promotional, poorly written advertisements -- why not focus on improving those articles instead of the BMC article which is in much better shape, with much better references?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I studied your interactions with other users. I rarely found additions. When you're "contribute", articles shrink in terms of byte count. No doubt some of this is spam removal (which everybody supports) but in my view, with this BMC article, you're being destructive. I'll try to keep faith that your purpose here in Wikipedia is helpful, but evidence suggests otherwise.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I'd rather research and fix troubled articles rather than slog over this matter with you. If your intentions are good, persuade me with specifics. Work with me constructively to fix this article. But if your pattern of participation continues, then let's go to arbitration.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
This discussion is inappropriate. Please stop disrupting this talk page. See User_talk:Tomwsulcer#Talk_BMC_Software.E2.80.8E -- Ronz ( talk) 15:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Sources I haven't probed much include BMC's 10K filings -- sometimes accountants give rather detailed descriptions about products. I think as of today (Aug 11 2009) the "products section" is somewhat weak, while the acquisitions section is somewhat too detailed, perhaps (and needs to be intelligently put together). Sources I haven't probed that well yet include: barrons, businessweek, infoworld, Network Computing, and as I said, the SEC filings. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Update Aug 11. Used SEC 10K data to make two tables showing how BMC gets revenue, and spends $$. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Update Aug 12th article much longer -- temporary plan is to hunt for more information (particularly employee counts) also for better ideas about products and services -- some of this stuff is highly complex, and keeps changing -- I think the focus should be on current focus (with some historical background about how products have changed); then, when information is inside the article, with references, I hope to organize it better, tighten, rewrite, and make it a useful Wikipedia article; right now I admit its clumsy but this stuff just takes time. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Update Aug 12th article getting better; more information; pictures added but we need better ones that are more relevant to improve visual appeal of this article; if other editors find BETTER or MORE RELEVANT PICTURES, please switch them in and take the other ones out. I'm planning on condensing the text considerably by making it more focused, tighter; I'll probably work offline tomorrow (Aug 13th), section by section, switching them in. Plus, I need to add more information about the products (sketchy information so far; will get more.) Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Thanks, Postoak, for all the cleanup work. We've been waiting for someone with your experience to help out. It is appreciated.
My comments about primary sources are a bit scattered and have received no response yet, so I'm collecting my comments and expanding upon them a bit:
"Ideally, press releases and similar documents should only be used to expand upon information that has already been identified as important by independent sources. Given how huge this article is, the easiest areas to trim are those sourced only with BMC's own publications." We still have a lot of primary sources. As I pointed out, this is in itself not necessarily a problem. "It is the combination of using primary and self-published sources with few or no independent sources that is the problem." "The SEC filings are all primary sources, of course. When an article begins with "BMC Software Inc., a Houston-based maker of management software, said..." or something similar, it's almost always just a press release. Similarly, the NYT "Technology Briefing" articles are short compilations of press releases."
At this point, we could use some help trimming the article in the same way that I did the images: trimming and abridging content that is of dubious importance, not sourced by independent, reliable sources. Sections such as History, Acquisitions, Competitors, Assets, Financial performance, and Operations could all be easily trimmed around what secondary and tertiary sources we have. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the tag as well as remove a couple of the most problematic sections. This is an encyclopedia article, not a financial analysis. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Acquisitions section per above. I've tagged History, Competitors, and Assets. I don't think the latter two belong without many more and better refs. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Right now the article is rather large and somewhat unwieldy but please don't delete anything until I get more primary information in (w/references) which should happen in the next week (Aug 12-Aug19th 2009) after that then it's time to organize, compress, combine. It would be really neat to have a chart of their stock price over time, or perhaps a table showing how the number of employees has grown over time. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I've been using this format -- "In 1999, ..." -- to begin many sentences. The idea is to make organizing information easier later. I know it's redundant but please don't edit this until more information is added, so then consolidation can be done subsequently. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
The article is also grossly misleading when it talks about Bravo Mike Charlie and LAYOFFS! After the Remedy merger BMC announced a 900 person layoff company wide. That 900 was almost 17% of the workforce, the end result was that BMC displaced over 1200 when all was said and done..that is a 20% RIF! These were not the only layoffs. After each merger, there was a round of layoffs. Stating that BMC did NOT have layoffs after a merger is an outright lie. You also mention that BMC has posted profits since 2002, that again, is wrong. When Bob Beachum took over, BMC went 8 straight quarters NOT meeting their sales projections. The stocks tumbled from a high of $82/share to $34/share under his watch. The acquistion of Remedy is the ONLY thing that put the company in the "black" because Remedy's profits were counted as BMC revenue that year. I suggest a more careful review of history before posting any more info. 38.100.52.196 ( talk) 11:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to list competitors. A lot of company Wikis have a list of competitors and it's important piece of information.
Saying that the competitor section is "pointless" isn't very polite.
See Wikis on Xilinx, a huge chip company; Applied Materials, a gigantic company, or even some of the big software giants SAP AG and Adobe. They all have a section on the competition.
Doesn't have to be a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David44357 ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcbronline\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
BMC Software. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BMC Software. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I am an employee of BMC, and I have made some edits to the BMC page and plan to make some additional changes to update the information. I will not be using promotional language and will use high-quality independent sources for any facts added to the article. Tamicasey ( talk) 19:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am continuing the efforts of my colleague Tamicasey, to make the article about our company more accurate and up-to-date. (The IP edit a few minutes was me, as well as the one from my account.) Like Tami, I am aware of the concerns around conflict of interest, so I am being careful to use high quality sources and avoid promotional language, and I am especially interested in feedback on my work. Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on BMC Software. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6901435When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains a problem, which I introduced by mistake in an earlier edit. BMC's offerings are not primarily SAAS (though that is an increasingly important part of our business model). Though the article linked mentioned SAAS, the characterization I introduced in the text I added was incorrect.
Taking into account the point GermanJoe made above, I have drafted a new version of the first paragraph, removing words like "help," "rapidly," and "reliably" with "works with" and "effectively." I believe this is a reasonable reflection of the independent sources, but am open to suggestion. I have introduced a new citation to a recent Forbes piece, and reintroduced the European Business Review citation from my earlier edit. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 22:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The company identifies its strategy as "digital enterprise management;" it works with companies of various sizes to deploy digital services effectively, serving both existing and new infrastructure. [1] Its business model, which previously consisted mostly of on-premise solutions but increasingly incorporates Software as a service (SAAS), and is addressing the "digital transformation" trend. [2] [3] References
|
Header added for readability. GermanJoe ( talk) 01:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe and Ronz, we have a new president and CEO. It seems like a straightforward/factual change, so I noted this in the article myself. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe and Ronz, I think we are all in agreement that many of the sections contain too much unsourced detail, or detail that is sourced only to self-published sources or SEC reports. Looking through the article history, it appears that most of the content was added by long-time Wikipedians, so in dealing with this older material, I don't think it actually results from COI editors. But regardless of that, here is a suggestion for a starting point:
We looked through the History (1990s and 2000s) section, and I think there are a few themes that could be addressed. Overall, there are a lot of extensive quotes; to better match Wikipedia style, I would think most of those should be removed and paraphrased in a few words.
The entire 2nd paragraph of "1900s" might be deleted, or most of it; it characterizes a pattern that does not seem to be sourced, and the sources the paragraph does contain (which don't really support the text anyway) are all self-published.
The Boole's Command Post paragraph paragraph seems far longer than it needs to be. (Specifically, is it helpful to speculate on the differences between a $877 million vs. a 1 billion purchase price? That range seems small enough that, almost 20 years after the fact, I'm wondering who would care.)
The 2nd paragraph in "2000s" goes into detail about ASP that may belong at the ASP article, but seems extra here.
On a separate note, I notice there are short articles on BMC Control-M and Remedy Corp. Should those maybe be merged into this one?
If helpful, I can make the suggestions more specific, but I want to check with you guys first. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the further improvements you made in my sandbox to the 1990s section. I have reviewed everything you did and agree with it all, you caught some worthwhile stuff for removal. But I'm sure you don't need my consent! You do not seem to be disagreeing with any of my changes, just going further down the road of tidying up issues that have existed for years. This seems encouraging. The University of Houston part may have some relevance, which is why I didn't delete it, but it will take some digging for sources to demonstrate it, so I'm fine with deleting it at least for now, while I do a little further research. As far as I'm concerned the draft can be moved back into the article now. Whether or not it's perfect, I think we're both agreed that it's better than the current version, correct? - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That looks good, thank you! I am now starting on the 2000s section at User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 2000s sandbox (as you suggested, not in my main sandbox). I will let you know when I'm done. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 20:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
GermanJoe and Ronz, I have made some further suggestions for trimming and summarizing the 2000s section here: User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 2000s sandbox. Some of the acquisitions are sourced only to BMC press releases; if you think it would be better to remove those ones entirely, that's fine with me. Please feel free to edit my sandbox directly, or to copy it back to the article if you feel it is an improvement over what is already here.
In addition, several sections would make more sense as subsections of "History," and/or have redundant info. I suggest:
If these general ideas are agreeable, let me know and I will get more specific. I don't know if I can make these changes as easily in a sandbox since they will involve multiple sections, but I will find a way to suggest them.
Once we have finished tidying up the historical sections, I would like to make some suggestions for bringing "Products and services" up to date, and perhaps expanding the lead section, of course using independent sourcing and subject to the approval of uninvolved Wikipedians. - Karenarlenereynolds ( talk) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)