User talk:Brucebolger1953

Welcome!

Hello, Brucebolger1953, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brucebolger1953. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments relating to editing[edit]

Hello, Bruce. In connection with the message immediately above, it does seem that you have a personal involvement relating to matters you have edited about, in both of the articles you have edited. You should therefore make sure that your editing is in line with the guideline on conflict of interest. Also, if your editing here forms part of work for which you are paid (whether by the Enterprise Engagement Alliance or by anyone else) then the requirement for disclosure mentioned above is part of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, so it is essential to comply with it.

Now the issue of copyright. Copyright requirements for posting content to Wikipedia are more stringent than for publication in many other places, because when you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is unusual that the owner of copyright in text licenses that text for such very free reuse, especially in the case of a commercial copyright owner, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. I have known it happen that either an individual copyright owner or someone working for a copyright owner has posted content to Wikipedia without realising what broad reuse licensing terms they have thereby granted, and have tried to revoke permission when they have found out. It is also common for authors to think that they are always free to release content they have written, which may not be so if that content was written on behalf of some other person or organisation, such as their employer or a client. For these and other reasons even when a Wikipedia editor sincerely believes they have the authority to post content subject to copyright we cannot assume it is so. Wikipedia policy is to require proof of suitable licensing, not to wait for a copyright owner to request removal.

I found a significant amount of the content of the article Iso 10018 published in other places. Some of that content was found very easily, while some of it required a considerable amount of searching, because of minor changes in wording which made automated searching unreliable. There is a common misconception that copyright applies only to absolutely verbatim copying, and minor changes in wording deal with that, but it is not so. For example, changing "In most cases, organizations can demonstrate compliance through disclosure of written business plans and demonstration of ongoing practices related to those plans and the measurement systems applied – based both on an onsite visit and subsequent analysis" to "Organizations demonstrate compliance through disclosure of written business plans and demonstration of ongoing practices related to those plans and the measurement systems applied – based both on an onsite visit and subsequent analysis" does not in any way diminish the fact that the one is clearly copied from the other: minor details such as removing "In most cases" and "can" do not alter that fact. I found many cases of such close paraphrasing. Every one of the examples I found came from sources with copyright notices, none of which suggested free reuse licensing. I have therefore deleted the article. I am aware that this is likely to be frustrating for you, as you clearly put a significant amount of work into writing it and editing it, but for the reasons I have explained it was necessary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]