User talk:ISO-Convener

As a side note, there never was a copyright issue. BSI accidently put a draft copy up with their copyright BY ACCIDENT,,,once they realized what they did, they immediately removed it as that was in direct violation of ISO rules. It just took google some time to update their caches for some reason. So please get past this and allow the standardization committee who is developing this standard for ISO and the ECM industries continue working on the page? Or should we just give up, as if you won't let the technology experts discuss the technologies, doesn't that seriously degrade the whole foundation of wikipedia of the free exchange to information that is actually accurate and reliable?

And if you aren't going to recognize the international experts (as certified by their national bodies) in this field and topic, then who will you recognize, people who aren't acknowledged experts with ISO or anyone who happens to "come along"?? We sure hope not.

ISO-Convener, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! ISO-Convener, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is becoming absurd. First you thought it was a duplication, then i showed that it wasn't. I am the ISO Convenor and author of the ISO 18759 Trusted Storage Specification, so you have absolutely NO BASIS in telling me that supporting information my committee prepares for wikipedia to help lay the foundation for users who then can read the standard if needed, is simply unacceptable. You are literally telling the team of industry experts working on this that you, the editors know more about what we are writing than we do.

I truly hope you also quite a bit wrong with that whole concept. Conflicts of interest in ISO standardization is not tolerated and if you are not able to retract that statement, I will need to get ISO Central Secretariat and the TMB involved with your legal teams as they are the copyright holders of the standards BUT NOT THE WHITE PAPERS AND ARTICLES THE TEAM WRITES AND I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO IMPUNE MY PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION IN THIS FASHION. SO PLEASE STOP GUESSING AND MAKING UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS!!!

THIS REALLY HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. PLEASE GET SOMEONE ENGAGED AT A SENIOR ENOUGH LEVEL SO THAT WE CAN SETUP A CON CALL WITH WHOMEVER NEEDED AS THIS IS REALLY GETTING ABSURD.

IF YOU WANT TO VERIFY WHAT IS IN WIKIPEDIA AGAINST ISO 18759, JOIN ISO AND YOU CAN GET A COPY !!! SO DON"T SAY THERE"S A CONFLICT WHEN YOU HAVEN"T EVEN READ THE STANDARD.

EMAIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS SHOULD GO TO MY PRIVATE ACCOUNT YOU HAVE ON FILE. You can also review my credentials at eid-inc.com and you will note i have been developing standards for ANSI and ISO for over 25 years.

Thank you and hopefully this finally sets this whole mess straight...

Robert Blatt, MIT, LIT, CHS-III

IF you are are not familiar with ISO or the ISO procedures you can review them at ISO.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.104.178 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Storage specification

Sorry to respond here and not via private email, but I 1) try to conduct Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, and 2) I prefer to keep my personal email address private.

That said, I'm going to need to see if I can get someone more versed in Wikipedia copyright issues to assist you. The core of the problem is that the text that you placed on the page was first published elsewhere on a page with copyright notices. You say that the text is public domain, and that may very well be true, but showing that to be the case may be tricky once it's published under a copyright like it was. The fact that the previous publishing is "out of date" really holds very little bearing on the situation. The core issue at play right now is copyright on the text.

Also, on a different note, once you get past the copyright issues, there's the issue that your text is rather unencyclopedic. It's a wall of text that is not formatted at all well for Wikipedia. So you'll have more issues to deal with once the copyright issue is handled. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be a conflict of interest problem. ISO-Convener, please follow the blue links on the template I have placed lower down this page to learn about our policies. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; The conflict has been resolved. Google cache had an outdated link from a british site that has been corrected. The ISO DB now shows me as the project editor and the old information was removed from BSI. Please re-run the duplication detector and release the page so that i can resume editing and updating.

thank you, ISO-Convener (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Storage specification

there are no copyright issues. Please go directly to the site identified in the Google Cache and you IMMEDIATELY notice that document was removed from the BSI site several months ago. Plesae re-run the utility and let us know how you want this formatted.

I have notified ISO Central Secretariat requesting they get involved to sort this out quickly.

thank you,, ISO-Convener (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ISO-Convenor. I've seen your replies on the issue, and yes the cache page does appear to have been purged. However, the fact that it did appear on that site at one time means that the content in question has been previously published, whether or not is it still there. So in order to confirm copyright, we need to find the first place that this was published to ensure that the initial publication was in fact Public Domain. Can you link to where that content was originally published? Like you, we just want a quick resolution. Thanks, Crow^Caw 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crow That is what is so funny about this. We haven't published it yet. I am the ISO convener for the project and what i prepared is information we prepared to explain to people what the effort is about, the scope and purpose. There are multiple countries participating in this effort, all supplying experts to the overall effort. We won't be ready to publish this for at least another 12 - 18 months. You would need to find out directly from BSI why they had placed the initial ISO proposal on their site in error. Whatever their reason, they clearly realized their mistake as it was taken down by them, many months ago. So, it isn't possible to show when we first published this, as the team is still working on the details. please advise what next as i am not sure how to resolve an error some other organization made and then self-corrected. thanks,,ISO-Convener (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next step is to follow the procedure outlined at WP:DCM. Since Wikipedia releases its content under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever), we must ensure that source material is similarly licensed, and that one copyright instance on the BSI site is all we have to go on otherwise.
Since as you say this is a work in progress, please be aware that the content you donate is subject to continuous editing by the Wikipedia community. It may be added to, subtracted from, rearranged, illustrated, split into multiple articles, translated into other languages, and otherwise changed beyond your expectations. Thanks, Crow^Caw 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crow; Making this information available is the whole point as their is GREAT confusion on this topic. if you want this topic to become a thread referring to the wrong topic that is up to you guys (that is what was there that we kept trying to correct). if you want us to continue contributing, please recognize the above, otherwise i give up. ISO Tech program manager suggested we write this up as a white paper, which we might do as putting accurate information onto wikipedia seems to be a significant challenge, even for those acknowledged and credentialed national experts on the topics. I would understand if various people would edit, but if you have a group of credentialed experts willing to help share information to the public as a whole, why has this become so difficult? Please let us know what you want to do.ISO-Convener (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, see WP:DCM which outlines the process to confirm ownership of the material, and to properly license it for use. I was just making sure you were aware of the extent to which it may be re-used once licensed, as that is not always the case.Crow ^Caw 23:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i appreciate your insight. I am not doing anymore with this. I created the pages, did quite a bit of editing to simplify the reading and then started spending too much time trying to explain why the stuff we write is the stuff we write. Wikipedia knows the issue, the person who "locked" the page knows the issue and i'm sure is monitoring this discussion. Thanks and if "TexasAndroid" releases the page so that the team can resume working on it, or now.....at this point, i am doing no more work on the page or this topic until it is released by "TexasAndroid" who is the person who i guess is responsible for monitoring this page. Thanks for the info and i guess we all will see if this just simply goes back to the old, incorrect stuff, or if someone actually is reading these comments. Thanks for your insight and as mentioned above. Either texasandroid releases this or not.....too much time being spent trying to explain something to someone who doesn't understand the topic. The usual problem we all encounter in the IT and eRecords community. Thanks again and i guess we will see what they do, if anything...ISO-Convener (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, believe me. From our side though, all we know is that (mistakenly or not) the text added was asserted to be copyrighted on a web site. Since we all are pseudo-anonymous (I might not actually be a crow, for example) the only way to positively confirm that the appearance on BSI was in error is to go through the WP:DCM process where they privately and confidentially confirm that. Copyright issues are a legal liability, and we are given very little leeway in how to deal with it. Crow^Caw 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and yes,,,i realize you are using a username, as me....whatever Wikipedia wants to do at this point is fine with us,,,,if you want us to continue sharing, we will be happy to, if not, that's ok as well...thanks for your insight and we'll see what Wikipedia decides. I really don't have time to prove that i wrote what i wrote,,,i am too far along in my career that i'm not stealing someone else's homework..the proof of what i write is contained in the ISO documents we complete. Did u notice that TexasAndroid, who started this whole mess,,has been extremely quiet through this discussion? Thanks and as noted above,,,either wikipedia releases the page or not.... Regards,ISO-Convener (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, ISO-Convener. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Trusted Storage specification, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no thanks, i have too much work of my own to do and we have much to continue with this standard. Do whatever you want to this post. I will notify ISO and ANSI of this whole situation including what you decide to do with the information presented by the industry experts (these are the folks who are officially recognized by ANSI as experts in their fields within the US). Please advise what you decided to do.

thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.104.178 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi ISO-Convener, just want to reach out and see if you can have a quick look at the WP:COI page. To explain a bit, editors with a COI are allowed to edit articles, and there's help on how to do any disclosure there. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or at WP:COIN. It would help discussion if you strike any WP:LEGAL talk, Regards Widefox; talk 12:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]