Talk:Bill Buchanan (computer scientist)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Buchanan (computer scientist). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107151030/http://www.sicsa.ac.uk/industry/cyber-security/christmaslectures2013 to http://www.sicsa.ac.uk/industry/cyber-security/christmaslectures2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001231906/http://www.holyrood.com/2012/09/tech-100-education/ to http://www.holyrood.com/2012/09/tech-100-education/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing unacceptable for a BLP

This is almost entirely primary-sourced. It reads like an academic CV, not a Wikipedia article. There's a lot of facts here, but ... are there the third-party WP:RSes that show these facts are noteworthy enough to write about? - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Doing a serious cull of the bad sourcing. Wikipedia is not your resume - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source for the professional fellowships? (Those are basically the things that make him pass WP:NPROF) - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Buchanan is NOT listed as a Fellow of the IET - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This list purports to be just a few of our recently elected Fellows, so Buchanan's absence does not indicate he is not a fellow. Of course, at the moment, the only source we have for his membership is the Napier bio. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

the claim can't go in without a source. Searching the site for "buchanan fellow" doesn't give any evidence - but it does give a newsletter in which another new fellow called Buchanan is listed - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Is he the William Johnston Buchanan listed here? - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mostly cleaned up

Since the article was substantially trimmed by myself and others in the past month, I think most of the points in the maintenance templates were addressed:

• The article is no longer written like an advertisement.
• Most of the contributions of Billatnapier (talk · contribs) and the ip editors have been removed, so little to no COI issues.
• A primary source is still used for basic biographical information. This is not ideal, but not dire enough to warrant a maintenance template.
• The puffery has been removed.

Notability might still be an issues, and at this point the article is a stub. But at least the remaining content is much more encyclopedic. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have caught WP:PUFFERY again since the work summarised above. I have re-tagged as advertisement. Have also deleted some of the lengthy quotations after checking with Diannaa about excessive user of non-free content. Have tagged with some sources unreliable (self-published) and that some do not verify the statements to which they are attached. Am about to ask for help on WP:IMAGEHELP about copyright of recently added images. Unsure that the YouTube videos at the start belong in the article either. Tacyarg (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Have removed images with unclear copyright status (left in those which could potentially be selfies or taken by Billatnapier) and cut some unsourced or poorly sourced statements (primary sources, self-published info). Have tagged as CoI due to the promotional text added. Article currently has 345 refs, of which a handful are duplicates. As far as I can see, these are the only secondary reliable sources included:

• Times Higher Education, confirms award
• THES again, confirms one of the "50 most influential higher education professionals using social media in the UK"
• FutureScot magazine, lists Buchanan as "50 people from various areas of Scotland’s technology industries who are changing the world"
• Insider, unsure if this is reliable, may be based on a press release; Buchanan is quoted
• Deadline News, may be based on a press release; Buchanan is quoted

Interested in others' views, but thinking of stripping article back to what can be sourced as above, and similar to the 2019 version here.

I have tagged the most recent IP editors' Talk pages with CoI notices, but unsured how much point there is to this given the frequent changes in IP. Tacyarg (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (December 2023)

Promotional text added by several IP editors - example, "has a reputation for high impact, fun and engaging presentations". Images uploaded by Billatnapier and then added to article by IP editors. Tacyarg (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up article August 2024

I have stumbled across this article while checking Wikipedia on unrelated matters. I have read the talk page history and looked at the edit history, and have been shocked at the state of this article. As a result, I've started cleaning it up by removing inappropriate and unsourced material, up to and including section-blanking where appropriate. I know there's already a number of templates at the top of the article, but I have tagged some references where I think there might be a chance to improve them later. Given the history of the article, I am more often than not removing material rather than adding 'citation needed' tags.

I will note also here that I will be watching for IP editors adding back in material, and if it's still unsourced or only sourced by primary sources, I will be removing it again. Furthermore if that happens, I think it would be worth considering page protection (though I'm not sure how that works).

It goes without saying that fixing the whole article may take some time, hence I thought it a good idea to put this message on the talk page.JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Progress update - so many sections are entirely supported by Primary Sources - Napier pages or press releases, papers authored by the article's subject, or other institutional or company pages or releases - that the only way to reasonably fix these sections is to blank them. With hundreds of primary references given, it's not practical to check every single one. Astonishingly, one of the press releases spot-checked links to a story in the Scotsman, a genuine secondary source that could be used instead! When I tackle that section I'll replace the reference and leave what it supports. Still a long way to go before the multiple issues templates can be removed, but. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on reference style - while working on the article yesterday I was confused by how many references used didn't actually support the information given (some were already tagged failed references), and the number of references included when nothing had yet been stated that required referencing (people's names, for example). After sleeping on it, I've realised that what has happened is that instead of citations being added as references to support information given, as per Wikipedia policy, they were actually footnotes that have been added in the style of an academic piece of writing. That explains why so many references were added to home pages after the first mention of a person or an institution. It also means that in some cases where editors (including myself) had assumed WP:AGF and tagged the reference (presuming that it did once support, but the site had been edited since being added) were misled and those 'references' were simply footnotes all along. While largely circumstantial and by no means a smoking gun, this does seem to suggest that the IP editor adding information in that style either is, or is closely associated (WO:COI) to the subject. The closest thing to a 'smoking gun' would be the edit Special:Diff/1168098539 where the subject's early schooling was added with 'references' to the home pages of the schools; as the home pages do not (and likely never did) support the claim 'the subject went to school here', it's likely that only someone with special knowledge of the subject could have added this information. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've replied on your Talk page and will have a look through the article next week, but wanted to say thanks here for all your work on it - must have taken you a serious amount of time, and it looks much better. I think your conclusion about the refs is accurate. Tacyarg (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)