Karenarlenereynolds

Good Technology

OK, I'll give you a chance to go through the text again. Your refs could do with a bit of tweaking. Some give the title, but not the publication, some are bare urls and I don't know what Visto is intended to be. Blogs are not usually acceptable, so you will need to check that the use is justifed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jimfbleak. Could you also restore Talk:Good Technology so I can respond to your comments over there? It might take me a week or two to give it a thorough review. Some of the material was added since my last edits, like the "Visto" reference; I can easily remove that, rephrase the way Visto is described to make it clearer, and format references. Further fixes might take me a little longer. I also may ask my colleague Nikfar to work on this, to keep things moving forward, as I will be traveling in the coming weeks. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk restored, sorry I forgot to do it at the time. Please make sure your colleague understands our policies. Enjoy your travelling, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing your sandbox

Hello Karenarlenereynolds, would you mind me editing your sandbox version directly? It certainly contains some improvements, but also has some flaws, mostly regarding a fully "uninvolved" tone. I can't promise to do a full review, but wanted to check eventual editing in your userspace with you first (it's your userspace after all). It might also make sense to move this text to a separate userpage of yours (for example to something like User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 1990s sandbox) - this way you can re-use your main sandbox more easily for other purposes. You can have as many separate "sandboxes" or other pages as you want in your userspace to organize your work. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

GermanJoe Thank you for the offer. Yes. Please feel free to edit my draft. I'm okay keeping this edit effort in this sandbox for now, but truly appreciate your suggestion.Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have rephrased and trimmed some parts, and tried to explain all changes in the edit summaries as detailed as possible. As English isn't my native language, I'd appreciate you double-checking and improving any changes where necessary. The main goals should be: 1) be as succinct as possible and 2) avoid any non-neutral language, as well as subjective statements of opinion and general PR speak. I believe the current draft version is already a good step in the right direction for both aspects. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you GermanJoe, I agree with your further edits, and would be pleased to see this version replace what is in the article; I think it will address issues long raised by a several people in the discussion. I replied in a bit more detail at Talk:BMC Software. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done now. Just a quick additional tip (already fixed it in the article): when you remove a "named reference" (consisting of "ref name" and a citation), please make sure it's no longer used anywhere else in the article. If it's still used, the citation part should be copied to the first of the remaining usages - otherwise the citation information gets lost and the remaining named refs are broken (see WP:REFB for more info about referencing and named references). Thank you for the constructive cooperation to improve the article. GermanJoe (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)