Veridion,
Instead of getting involved in edit wars with 207.44.237.18, could I suggest mediation? You both have valid points. ISO are the owners of the standard, but Standards Direct is uniquely placed in the original publishers vending network for a variety of reasons. I would therefore suggest both links may be in order. To this end I have added ISO as a 'See Also' page as they have a Wikipedia section of their own.
I would like to leave the same message for 207.44.237.18, but he doesn't have a discussion page.
Binary G
- * * * * * * * * *
Dear Binary,
I appreciate your mediation but the person (207.44.237.18 and the other IP addresses he/she uses) seems to be on a quest to delete any link selling the ISO 27001 standard (including BSI's and ISO's, tjhe maker of this standard!), to promote only Standard Direct. Since there are dozens of other BSI's standards resellers, and since that person is promoting Standard Direct in several other Wikipedia categories (and deleting competing sites in these other categories as well), I would tend to believe that this person is closely related to Standard Direct (owner?). Now I have nothing against people promoting their own sites, but only if 1) these sites add value and 2) they don't delete other people's sites that compete with theirs if they also add value. Obviously, 207.44.237.18 is not willing to play by those rules.
I am aware that initiating the ISO 27001 entry in Wikipedia doesn't mean I own it, but I do feel a sense that it should be used to provide information about the ISO 27001 standard, not as a marketing tool to promote certain products/companies over others (I have my own ISO 27001 company and I don't promote it or its products here). Wikipedia holds great credibility because of this neutrality and I think it should be preserved.
Veridion
- Regarding your most recent edits, you are making allegations against a vendor which cannot be substantiated. This potentially exposes Wkipedia itself. Also, there is still scope to elaborate the page content, which surely would be more benefical than directing your energy into a long running campaign against that vendor, which credits no-one. As someone else mentioned, regular users do not have an issue here. You clearly have knowledge on the topic, why not use it positively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntraSec ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Multilateral Recognition Arrangement, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dar.bam.de/mlae.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Veridion,
Instead of getting involved in edit wars with 207.44.237.18, could I suggest mediation? You both have valid points. ISO are the owners of the standard, but Standards Direct is uniquely placed in the original publishers vending network for a variety of reasons. I would therefore suggest both links may be in order. To this end I have added ISO as a 'See Also' page as they have a Wikipedia section of their own.
I would like to leave the same message for 207.44.237.18, but he doesn't have a discussion page.
Binary G
- * * * * * * * * *
Dear Binary,
I appreciate your mediation but the person (207.44.237.18 and the other IP addresses he/she uses) seems to be on a quest to delete any link selling the ISO 27001 standard (including BSI's and ISO's, tjhe maker of this standard!), to promote only Standard Direct. Since there are dozens of other BSI's standards resellers, and since that person is promoting Standard Direct in several other Wikipedia categories (and deleting competing sites in these other categories as well), I would tend to believe that this person is closely related to Standard Direct (owner?). Now I have nothing against people promoting their own sites, but only if 1) these sites add value and 2) they don't delete other people's sites that compete with theirs if they also add value. Obviously, 207.44.237.18 is not willing to play by those rules.
I am aware that initiating the ISO 27001 entry in Wikipedia doesn't mean I own it, but I do feel a sense that it should be used to provide information about the ISO 27001 standard, not as a marketing tool to promote certain products/companies over others (I have my own ISO 27001 company and I don't promote it or its products here). Wikipedia holds great credibility because of this neutrality and I think it should be preserved.
Veridion
- Regarding your most recent edits, you are making allegations against a vendor which cannot be substantiated. This potentially exposes Wkipedia itself. Also, there is still scope to elaborate the page content, which surely would be more benefical than directing your energy into a long running campaign against that vendor, which credits no-one. As someone else mentioned, regular users do not have an issue here. You clearly have knowledge on the topic, why not use it positively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntraSec ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Multilateral Recognition Arrangement, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dar.bam.de/mlae.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)