User talk:66.84.37.52

OK, before this gets out of hand lets get a few things straight

1. I signed up for an account to actually provide some traceability. I fully understand that previous posts are tracked to IP addresses and they can be subsequently matched to a user name.

2. Yes, I own the BS25999.COM site

3. I put this site and others in my previous edit to try and get a balanced number of links including not only other portals but also two certification bodies, BSI and LRQA. BS25999 is a two part standard and Part 2 is about certification. Surely a link to two certification bodies and the standard author is relevant

4. The links that you seem so keen on keping in at the expense of BSI, my portal and others are as follows

Standards Direct, a distributor/affiliate of BSI. NOT BSI as seems to be the inference from the link. This is obviously a commercial operation because it seeks to sell copies of the standard

BS25999 News, a small site with 3 or 4 articles about the standard including scans of the content page of the standard and links to, funnily enough the Standards Direct page, as above

PAS56 and BS2599, another small site with links back to, you guessed it, standards direct.

Can you see a theme developing here?

5. In defence of the BS25999.COM site and to explain its relevance, it has 15 articles on the subject of BS25999, split across 2 navigable sections, part 1 and part 2. The content includes a full explanation of each section of the standard with diagrams and a number of comments from others. The site also features a news section, file library, image library etc etc. In short it contains a great deal more relevant information so for that reason alone I feel it warrants inclusion regardless of any conflicting commercial issues with the current links.

In short, I think I have made a reasonable and fair argument for inclusion as a relevant link to the subject

Look forward to hearing from you


 * The bottom line is that you should NOT be placing a link to your OWN site. Everything flows from that. You were caught out, including the trick of hiding your link addition amongst other additions.


 * Attacking existing links to justify placement is transparent as well. For your information though, I work for a national standards body, and I can tell you that Standards Direct is not a normal affiliate site. It was also the original online source for this standard, which is probably why it is linked to by other sites. Clearly, as an affiliate yourself, this wrankles with you. You cannot though use it as an excuse to replace it with your own site.


 * You have used a range of methods to attempt to add your link to this and other pages. Wikipedians though are not stupid. Please bear that in mind.


 * If you do have a genuine interest in this standard, perhaps you would be better served writing actual content, rather than simply trying to add your link by whatever means you can think of.

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)