Talk:United States federal government continuity of operations

message: I'm not up to speed on wiki-policy, so could a more senior member weigh in on whether the computer security section at the end of the article (after the horizontal rule) is appropriate?  I've never seen it done on any other article, and it doesn't seem right to just stick it at the bottom of the page.  Are there rules for this? --Jweed 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right; it was off-topic and incorrectly styled as well. Removed. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer security?

message: It lokos out of place and unneeded.  What does anyone think about my getting rid of it.  
--Gbinal 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get rid of contents box?

message: It seems that this directive or "Plan B" was removed by the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.     DeathscytheH64 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated?

message: Does anybody else feel the 8 "concerns" over the Continuity of Operations Plan seem a little too out there? I can understand how somebody individually might feel that way, but where has any of these concerns been brought up or addressed by an official with a little more understanding on the subject? I can see #1 or #2 being a bit broad and general, but after that the writing gets a bit superfluous for a wikipedia page.--Goob (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a article with a number of quotations giving concerns about the COP.  I am re-entering this, so others can look at the sources given there to see if there is any-thing that can be used.  This is a talk page, not a content page.  Please do not delete this link again. Kdammers (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Spam doesn't belong on talk pages either. Promoting some blog entry by an anonymous person isn't helpful. If you see a source he uses you actually read and think is relevant, post a link to THAT source. We shouldn't be promoting this guys personal opinion piece just because it might contain a link to something useful. Show the useful stuff from the RS and don't make people wade through this dude's personal opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theorists?

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The quotation marks are particularly ugly and should be avoided. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Continuity of Operations. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F118489654058910.xml&coll=7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120726070521/http://www.norad.mil/about/CMOC.html to http://www.norad.mil/about/CMOC.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can the authors of this article tell me what was the original subject, scope, and focus of this article? It appears to me that it was intended to be limited to continuity of operations of the United States federal government. I ask this question though because of the last statement in the article summary which reads, "FEMA provides guidance to the private sector for business continuity planning purposes." Is this guidance provided by FEMA part of the U.S. continuity of operations plan or is this a tangent, a separate initiative, and a related subject? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the subject of this article?

message: :Continuity of Operations →  – This article is about one specific initiative of the United States federal government and not one specific document nor the subject of Business continuity or any of its sub-topics in general. The current article title is misleading as it does not specify that the scope is limited to the United States federal government. There are other good alternatives but the bottom line is that some differentiation is needed to name the focus of the article which the current title does not provide. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems eminently reasonable. I will move it. I can't see any possible controversy about this, so I will also close this discussion. Please revert my changes of you disagree. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 October 2018 

message: A passage  but its citation to "Homeland security takes over communications May 9, 2007" was left in place. I am removing this orphaned citation from the article. Ibadibam (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source removed