Talk:BMC Software/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Bmc logo.gif

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)

Wikipedia is not corporate media relations

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)

Agreed. I've restored that advert tag that had been removed without addressing the many problems here. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Expanded article as of Aug 9 2009

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

Acquisitions Wikitable

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

Update Aug 14 2009

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

Interactive Graphics

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 competitors

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

Such sections need to be extremely well referenced by secondary sources. Otherwise they tend to become soapboxes and coatracks for off-topic and non-neutral expansion. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you're getting at regarding a need for having "extremely well referenced" information about competitors. I believe in referencing everything I write, but I don't see why a section on competitors needs to be better referenced than other sections. I added the section on competitors based on comments I had seen from previous editors. There had been no section on competitors; so I added one, and I think the addition is helpful, impartial, and adds to readers' understanding of this particular software company. The idea of which firms are competitors is difficult to pinpoint -- Yahoo Finance grouped BMC with other firms like CA, IBM, HP and these firms all make application software. So I think there is considerable validity to a source like Yahoo which is trying to provide helpful information to the investment community. But the software business is constantly changing; sometimes firms compete in some areas, but cooperate in others; for example, BMC writes software that works on IBM mainframe computers. And there are loads of smaller firms too which are working on particular technologies. BMC, via its accountants, in a 10K statement, described its take on who competitors are (and mentions them by name), and I think this is a good source provided that I say "this is what BMC thinks its competitors are" in a public 10K document. While 10k data is generated by BMC itself, I thought it was valid because it was required by authorities to be correct -- with possible penalties for omissions, errors, distortions -- so I think the 10K annual statements are a valid source for describing BMC. I think there's a danger that the people who have a vested interest in making BMC look good -- such as BMC employees, PR people, investors, management -- might try to downplay the section on competitors. So, if anything, I think impartial editors like us should work hard to keep this information in, and treat any effort to remove it based on any reason (insufficient sources, a requirement that it be "extremely well referenced") with suspicion. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Cleanup, wikify, etc

"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)

OK, thanks Ronz, I'll follow your lead here. In the meantime I'm working on other projects. And I think the general problem is, as I wrote earlier, boringness. Did you see the tool to measure the "hit" counts of WP articles? Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer
I removed the "wikify" tag -- some think wikification means putting more links in, but I'm loathe to slog through the pages and pages about what "wikification" means. I think this article is in good shape, with solid references, good coverage of different issues, NPOV tone. I don't think leaving the tags on does much good. I plan to remove the "cleanup" tag in a few days unless I can get some solid idea about how to improve this article. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WPWF#How_to_help has a very simple and short explanation of what the issues are and how to resolve them.
I've added a primarysources tag as well. 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. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked up "wikification" and I sincerely do not see what you're talking about. Here's what your link said:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
An article needs wikification if it has any of the following issues:
  1. No specific lead paragraph and/or has no section headings;
  2. Little or no internal linking (wiki-links);
  3. Contains outdated html tags that need replacing with wiki markup;
  4. No infobox or templating and may require it;
  5. In need of other general formatting fixes.
So, on which count does the current BMC Software article fail? I think it's succeeds in every task. It has a nice lead paragraph. It has an infobox. It has plenty of links. It has section headings. It's well organized. It's not an advertisement -- it lists competitors, and gives instances when the firm had downturns and layoffs. If you object to something, please show specifically what you're talking about. Show me how to make it better, with specifics. If you feel any html tags are outmoded, which ones? Be specific.Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer
Regarding press releases -- there is very little in this article based on press releases. The sources are solid, independent, third-party, neutral. In some cases, I used SEC documents like the 10K which are based on internal BMC accounting documents, but they're solid sources because this information is given to the government (with substantial penalties from the government to BMC if it's found wrong); and these sources are indicated as such. Frankly, in my opinion, the article is as good as it's going to get; it is well referenced, neutral. I do not think it will ever be a "featured article" or even "good article" because, frankly, the subject isn't that interesting. Wikipedia has an anti-business bias overall, and this is a rather boring business subject. I've worked hard to make this article solid, and I resent it when you stick tags on it that make it look like a troubled piece of work without being specific about things that bother you. Last, if your objection is that the article is "too huge", consider that readers can choose not to read it -- since its well organized, they can skip stuff they're not interested in. And if specific things bother you, why not change them yourself? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
1) The lede section is currently only a sentence, failing WP:LEDE
2) The article contains few internal links
"Regarding press releases -- there is very little in this article based on press releases" I'll start tagging a few of the most blatant ones as a start.
Please stop edit-warring over tags. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged a couple. 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, I hope we can agree that a large percentage of the sources are primary ones, and that in some sections they make up the majority of the sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 2 September 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

You misunderstand. First, I only tagged some of the worst of the references. As I indicated, there are many, many more. Second, such references can be used, especially to expand upon information already verified by better sources. It is the combination of using primary and self-published sources with few or no independent sources that is the problem. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't help the article to remove such sources without changing the content or indicating that better sources are necessary. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you on a number of issues. Generally, I think this is an excellent article which describes this company, with plusses and minuses, which has excellent references. It is much better than most of the business articles out there. It is neutral, unbiased, factual, a quality work. I propose we take our dispute to Dispute Resolution.Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer
I think we could use WP:THIRD at this point, though it would be helpful to first indicate what it is you're disputing. You've yet to address my concerns about the large number of primary sources and how to deal with them. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What next?

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)

I replaced some of the flagged references and expanded the lead. I believe the internal links are sufficient. Article tags are removed. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I see only a few self-published sources. It's getting late and need to get to bed. Please tag those that need to be fixed and I will get to them. I see no reason to tag the article since the majority of the sources are acceptable. I checked out the featured Microsoft article which has many self-published sources so it appears they are acceptable and can be used. Postoak (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
Thanks, Postoak, for your comments and helpfulness. At this point I'm going to abandon the BMC Software article indefinitely. I'm tired of battling with Ronz about a subject which no longer interests me. I've been accused of violating Wikipedia's policies. I try to follow them as best I can. My concern is that there are editors in Wikipedia who have no real interest in improving the encyclopedia but who misuse knowledge of rules to bully people. Wikipedia's anonymity, along with an unfair imbalance between long article creation time and fast deletion time, and rule complexity means Wikipedia is a perfect place for bullies to satisfy a personal need for power. Armed with rules and a bent for destruction, Wikibullies can have a field day pushing people around, browbeating fellow editors with narrow interpretations of complex rules and mask aggressiveness with a facade of helpfulness. The actions of Ronz, in my view, in this BMC article show a consistent pattern of hostility and incivility and destructiveness -- reversions, undos, deletions, improper tagging -- without any constructive work. There is a similar pattern of Ronz's interactions with others. This experience has soured me on Wikipedia, and I am seriously considering quitting entirely or reducing my contributions substantially. Wikipedia isn't much fun when it becomes wiki-lawyerland.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

More information sources

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

Regarding the images. I'm not very experienced in applying WP:IMAGE to articles, but from what I've seen in good articles, there are too many images here, many of which are not very relevant. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz I agree probably too many images but I'm going to let other editors work with this for a while who have fresh eyes. Why not you? I don't know much about images -- I just copied formats other users have used -- if you put the word "left" or "right" it moves accordingly. I would REALLY love something interactive -- like, a user clicks on a button, and different software paths light up or do something like a science exhibit, but I don't think I'm technically savvy enough to do this. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
You seem to be the only one to think so with the images left and admittedly don't have much experience in using images in articles. The images I reinserted are not obtrusive and not completely irrelevant as you claim. Tomwsulcer seems to be willing to work together towards a good article after pretty much nobody really cared about it, the only question is why you don't seem to be. There is no need for any article to be a certain length and no need to extensively trim this one. Even the featured articles didn't get that way overnight and nothing in this place is perfect anyway. If nobody else objects I'm reinserting them. Biofase flame| stalk  00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Please focus on content per WP:NPA and WP:TALK. Thanks!
No rationale has been provided for keeping the images in question. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Need for abridgement around the primary sources

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)

Yikes, this is going to be difficult..the NYT "Technology Briefing" articles may be compilations, but they are not authored by BMC or verbatim copies of what BMC released. I would think these are acceptable. Couldn't we keep these? Also, reference #78 is dead, need help. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your continued work on this.
The Tech Briefings are an interesting case. They're more like like primary sources than secondary - if we don't have better sources demonstrating that the specific topic is worth presenting in detail, then the information should be trimmed or removed without a better source. The fact that a NYT editor decided that the information deserved such a brief mention isn't much help for us. Does it mean that if we mention it, we do so only very briefly without better sources? I think so.
The problem with these sources is that they cannot be used to determine proper WP:WEIGHT. I'm actually surprised that there isn't more guidance (at least that I can find) on how to write articles concisely such as those in a standard encyclopedia. WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS really don't address the issue well. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 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)

Organization

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)

Competitors

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)

  • If you want to discuss adding it, we can do that here. You don't get to ninja it in and then discuss it retroactively, as you tried to do with several articles. It's also very clear you may have some COI as the list of "Competitors" you've pasted in has been exactly the same in every article -- moreover, you appear to be a Sockpuppet of 209.76.124.126, since the edit was made from that IP and yet you started the talk page. Your edits correspond to an alarming degree, and I'm tempted to flag you and have an IP check performed. Lahnfeear (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see, you're the Hoffman Agency (http://www.hoffman.com). And look, your clients include Fabrik and SolarWinds, two of the companies you and your puppets have been hawking here. Well, welcome to Wikipedia, but be aware that you and your accounts will be watched very closely. Only entries you make that are encyclopedic in nature will be permitted. Lahnfeear (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh. Looks like this has been going on for quite some time actually. Lahnfeear (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A Spanish IP address keeps adding proactivanet (a Spanish company) to the competitor list of all the major ITSM vendors. As someone mentioned on another competitor page, proactivanet is not in the Gartner MQ for ITSM so this seems like a particularly blunt attempt to align themselves with this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.105.30 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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:

  • http://www.cbronline.com/news/bmc_pushes_business_service_controls_out_to_cloud_200709
    Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If 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)

External links modified

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Updates to article

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)

Revising introduction and history

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)

I recently updated the lead section, which followed up my colleague Tami deleting an unnecessarily detailed (and outdated) list of products.
I would like to continue working to bring the article up to date, and into closer compliance with Wikipedia’s standards; from the looks of this talk page and the article, it has been about 6 years since anybody put a focused effort into this article, and a great deal has happened in that time. Still, as an employee of the company, I would like feedback from uninvolved editors, and to discuss edits prior to posting them if anybody is available to do so. Those who worked on the article years ago, in case you are still around: Postoak, Ronz, Tomwsulcer, Biofase, Amezuki, Lahnfeear -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"It aims to help companies of various sizes deploy digital services rapidly and reliably" is not encyclopedic language, and contains no factual information. All companies - every single one - aim to "help" their customers and try to do so quickly and reliably. When in doubt, avoid any subjective qualifier - sticking to the bare facts is almost always the better approach. If you haven't done so already, please make sure to read Wikipedia's current WP:COI guideline, as there have been some significant changes in the last months and years. (I have fixed the previous indentation for better readability.) GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe, thank you for your review, and for tidying up my formatting -- couldn't figure out what I did wrong, but I get it now. I understand the need to avoid marketing language -- and, you should see the version I rejected before posting this! Yes, I have followed the terms of use update and understand the COI guideline; my aim here is to help improve the article according to Wikipedia's content standards, which is only possible with the involvement of experienced Wikipedia editors.
In hindsight, I can see how the words "rapidly and reliably" may not belong. But what I'm trying to do is help the reader understand what BMC does. Helping companies deploy digital services is descriptive, no? And, I think the source you removed is a pretty good one, isn't it? Is there a better way to phrase this, that improves the article without coming across as marketing-speak? Like just removing the words "rapidly and reliably" perhaps? -71.198.135.132 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree on "helping customers" - it's typical marketing language used in company leaflets and press releases. But aside from the problematic phrasing, the company's main activities are already sufficiently covered ("assist businesses in moving to digital operations", DEM, various platforms, SaaS). Another descriptive sentence is simply redundant. The lead section should only contain a brief summary of the topic's most notable aspects. Additional facts and more detailed information are generally provided in the main text, in this case in "Products and services". GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe No, I understand your point, I just couldn't come up with a more neutral phrase for what it is BMC tries to do. I'm not trying to emphasize that we help, just express what it is we try to help with. But it's ok to leave that out. For the moment, I'd like to tidy up some of the references, just formatting tweaks. I would still like to make some more substantive improvements to the article; I would like to address the primary reference issue that has been flagged since 2009, and get the article to a more readable state overall -- there are long sections that list details without any indication of how they connect. For instance, is there a reason so many acquisitions from the mid-2000s are listed, sentence by sentence, with some citing nothing more than a press release? It's hard for me to see how that kind of detail belongs in an encyclopedia. See my next edit, which will concern just three of the press releases used as source material. Ultimately, I would like to help bring this article to a point where it complies better with Wikipedia policy, and is easier to absorb what BMC has been in the past, and what it is today. I will make more specific suggestions here shortly. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph problem and proposed solution

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

  1. ^ Wadlow, Tom (August 2016). "12 questions for BMC on the 4th industrial revolution". Europe Business Review. p. 27.
  2. ^ Lopez, Maribel (October 15, 2016). "Disrupt or Die: BMC's Tips On Thriving Through Digitization". Forbes.
  3. ^ Gillin, Paul (September 30, 2015). "BMC's Beauchamp says digital transformation is on course". Silicon Angle.
I have rephrased the SaaS part a bit to tweak the emphasis per your suggestion. As a relatively uncontroversial statement it doesn't really need additional sources, the current references should suffice. However, a specific mention of effectivity is redundant, all companies hopefully try to operate effectively. And "digital transformation trend" is just another marketing buzzword, which adds no factual information in this context. As a general tip, I recommend to use Template:request edit on top of your message when you suggest further changes in articles, where you may have a conflict of interest. This template will add your suggestion to a queue of requests, and invite other currently uninvolved editors to have a look. I am glad to help with changes, but it's always better to have more editors participating in such discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the coi-editing needs better oversight, and edit requests made instead.
Glancing at the content, the "Directors and staff", "Partnerships", and "Assets" sections should be rewritten from better sources, if retained at all. Currently they look like warmed-over pr. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you GermanJoe for that edit. For what it's worth, the main reason I have tried to bring up new independent sources is because the company has undergone substantial change in recent years. Obviously going from public to private is a very unusual transition, and as you might imagine that is accompanied by major shifts in strategy and business model. While I am not tied to these specific sources, over time, any successful effort to described the company's evolution will need to incorporate more recent sources that currently exist in the article.
I agree with Ronz that there is far too much detail in this article, largely based on press releases. I don’t know whether or not those press releases were introduced by BMC staff, as most of them predate my employment; but my wish is to have an article that meets Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. I hope my recent edits, which more clearly identified some footnotes as press releases, can help in any effort to trim extraneous content. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New president

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)

I have formatted the layout a bit, Template:infobox company includes more information about the infobox and its parameters. GermanJoe (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks GermanJoe! -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing some poorly sourced details to trim

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)

Hello @Karenarlenereynolds:, if you would like to rework some paragraphs or even whole sections, you could prepare a new specific version of this part in your userspace. Such text can be added/replaced by uninvolved editors following the guideline at WP:COIATTRIBUTE. It seems clear that the current text is a bit too detailed, but without background knowledge of the company's history it's difficult to tell where trimming would be most beneficial (without loosing a succinct comprehensive overview of the company's development). About merging: the current text is already quite long and detailed, so merging more info into it might further decrease readability of the whole article - but again, without a specific concept it's hard to tell. Anyway, you can find some general advice about merging at WP:Merging if you would like to formally propose a merger. Hope that more general advice helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips, GermanJoe. I've put a proposed replacement for the 1990s section at User:Karenarlenereynolds/sandbox - and I pasted the existing text first, so it should be easy for you to see the changes in my proposed new version. On merging, you make good points. The articles I mentioned are pretty short, and have very few independent sources, so they could probably be even shorter. But I'll think about what you said and won't rush into anything. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:29, 3 February 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)

Done - the new version is certainly more succinct, and it reduces the overuse of quotations as well as some non-neutral phrasings. Thank you for preparing this revised version. GermanJoe (talk) 18:30, 20 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)

Specific suggestions for 2000s section, and some general suggestions

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:

  • make 1990s and 2000s sub-sections
  • merge "Acquisition & Privatization" into "History"
  • delete the "Directors and staff" section, merging any details that are not already contained in the other sections
  • delete "Location" (again, merging anything significant that is not already in the others
  • delete "Partnerships" which is very specific to 2009 for no apparent reason

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMC_Software/Archive_1&oldid=1029165596"